Tinnin v. Modot & Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys.

• Decision Date: 31 May 2022
• Docket Number: WD 84636
• Citation: 647 S.W.3d 26
• Parties: Judy A. TINNIN, Respondent, v. MODOT & PATROL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

647 S.W.3d 26

Judy A. TINNIN, Respondent,

v.MODOT & PATROL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant.

WD 84636

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: May 31, 2022

Jeffrey Richard Fink, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Timothy William Van Ronzelen, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

The Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees’ Retirement System ("MPERS") appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment rejecting MPERS's board of trustees’ decision to correct a calculation error as to reduce the amount of future monthly benefits to be paid to Judy A. Tinnin ("Tinnin"). MPERS claims that the trial court's judgment erroneously declared and applied the law, was not supported by substantial evidence, and was against the weight of the evidence. Because MPERS was required by statute to correct its error in calculating the monthly benefit amount to be paid to Tinnin, we reverse the trial court's judgment, and, pursuant to Rule 84.14,¹ enter judgment in favor of MPERS.

Factual and Procedural Background²

Tinnin married Timothy Tinnin ("ex-husband") on June 25, 1983. Ex-husband began working for the Missouri State Highway Patrol ("Highway Patrol") on August 1, 1986. As an employee of the Highway Patrol, ex-husband was a member of MPERS, entitling him to receive a monthly pension benefit upon his retirement.

On February 1, 2008, Tinnin filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage to ex-husband. On February 14, 2008, MPERS sent Tinnin and ex-husband a written estimate indicating that the monthly retirement benefit ex-husband accrued during the marriage was estimated to be $2,747.59, and noting that the maximum amount a court could award³ Tinnin was estimated to be $1,373.79 per month, with payment commencing upon ex-husband's retirement. A certified public accountant later determined in a pension valuation report dated October 28, 2008, that the present value of the marital portion of ex-husband's MPERS retirement benefits was $541,527.68.

The parties entered into a separation agreement dividing their marital property. The separation agreement provided that upon ex-husband's retirement, Tinnin would receive 40.77 percent of ex-husband's MPERS retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage. On December 30, 2008, the Circuit Court of Callaway County entered a decree of dissolution ("Dissolution Decree"), which incorporated the terms of the separation agreement. As such, the Dissolution Decree did not award Tinnin a specific amount to be paid each month from ex-husband's MPRES's retirement benefits, and instead awarded Tinnin a monthly benefit upon ex-husband's retirement that equates to 40.77 percent of ex-husband's retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage.

On March 19, 2009, the Circuit Court of Callaway County entered a division of benefits order that directed MPERS to "pay directly to [Tinnin] 40.77% of the monthly benefit accrued during the marriage, otherwise payable to [ex-husband]." Mariel Hale ("Hale"), a senior benefit specialist for MPERS, sent a letter to Tinnin dated July 27, 2009, that stated:

The monthly retirement benefit accrued from August 1, 1986 (date of employment) to December 30, 2008 (date of divorce), was $6,994.01. The [division of benefits order] indicates Ms. Judy Tinnin was awarded 40.77% of the benefit; therefore, she will receive a monthly benefit in the amount of $2,831.07 at the time [ex-husband] retires.

Hale's letter was in error, as it inadvertently overstated the amount of ex-husband's monthly retirement benefit by using the amount of ex-husband's monthly final average pay at the time. Ex-husband's monthly retirement benefit that accrued during the marriage was actually $3,320.77.

After receiving the July 27, 2009 letter, Tinnin met with a financial advisor to plan for retirement using the assumption that, upon ex-husband's retirement, she would begin receiving $2,831.07 in monthly benefits from MPERS. The financial advisor adjusted Tinnin's retirement investments in reliance on this assumption, and advised Tinnin that she would be able to retire while maintaining a similar standard of living. Tinnin met with the same financial advisor regularly over the years to revisit her retirement strategy, and each time, Tinnin and the financial advisor relied on the assumption that Tinnin would begin receiving $2,831.07 in monthly benefits from MPERS upon ex-husband's retirement.

On July 11, 2018, MPERS sent Tinnin a letter to inform her that ex-husband had applied to retire effective September 1, 2018. The July 11, 2018 letter advised Tinnin that upon ex-husband's retirement, and pursuant to the division of benefits order, Tinnin would begin receiving a monthly payment of $1,353.88.

After receiving the July 11, 2018 letter, Tinnin contacted MPERS and advised that she had been relying on the amount stated in MPERS's July 27, 2009 letter for nine years. MPERS's staff denied Tinnin's request to adjust the amount of the monthly benefit that would be paid to Tinnin upon ex-husband's retirement.

On August 29, 2018, Tinnin's attorney requested a review of staff's decision by MPERS's board of trustees. MPERS's board of trustees reviewed Tinnin's claim on February 21, 2019. The following day, MPERS's general counsel advised Tinnin in writing that the board of trustees agreed with staff's determination that Tinnin's monthly benefit should be $1,353.88. The letter advised Tinnin that, if she wished to pursue the matter further, she would need to seek review in the Circuit Court of Cole County.

Tinnin filed suit against MPERS in the Circuit Court of Cole County on March 19, 2019. Tinnin's petition ("Petition") alleged that the hearing before MPERS's board of trustees was a non-contested case, and sought judicial review of the board's decision pursuant to section 536.150.⁴ In Count I, the Petition asked the trial court to conclude that MPERS's refusal to honor the monthly benefit calculation set forth in the July 27, 2009 letter "should be overturned as being unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and involving an abuse of discretion." Count II of the Petition asked the trial court to equitably estop MPERS from reducing Tinnin's monthly benefit amount from $2,831.07 to $1,353.88, because MPERS's July 27, 2009 letter constituted affirmative misconduct, Tinnin had reasonably relied on the July 27, 2009 letter for nine years in planning for retirement, and Tinnin suffered damages as a result of that reliance.

MPERS filed an answer ("Answer") denying that Tinnin was entitled to the relief she requested. The Answer asserted that sections 104.200 and 104.1060.1 obligated MPERS to correct the calculation error made in its July 27, 2009 letter. The Answer argued that this statutory obligation foreclosed Tinnin's equitable estoppel claim and that, even if it did not, the mistake in the July 27, 2009 letter was not a result of affirmative misconduct. Finally, the Answer asserted that section 104.312.1(3) precluded Tinnin from receiving more than 50 percent of ex-husband's monthly retirement benefit accrued during the marriage.

Tinnin and MPERS filed a joint stipulation ("Joint Stipulation"), including twenty-two stipulated exhibits, on March 1, 2021. In the Joint Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts, among others:

2. [Tinnin] has been employed by the Missouri State Troopers Association (MSTA) as an administrative assistant since 1987.

3. As an administrative assistant at MSTA, [Tinnin] has operated its fax machine and has set and received faxes using its fax machine, including faxes that contained her personal communications.

4. Between 2007-2009, (573) 635-5500 was a telephone number for MSTA, and (573) 636-5572 was a fax number for MSTA.

Stipulated exhibit 1, a copy of the February 14, 2008 written estimate prepared by MPERS shortly after Tinnin filed for dissolution, was addressed to Tinnin from MPERS and included a handwritten notation that it had been "faxed."

A bench trial was held on March 4, 2021. Tinnin testified that the first time she saw the February 14, 2008 estimate was after MPERS informed her that, contrary to the information in the July 27, 2009 letter, her monthly benefit would be $1,353.88. Tinnin denied that she was the one who had written "faxed" on the February 14, 2008 estimate. On cross-examination, however, Tinnin admitted that, during the course of her dissolution proceedings, she "just gave" documents with attached worksheets to her attorney without reviewing the documents or attempting to understand what the documents meant.

The trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment on May 28, 2021 ("Judgment"). The Judgment reversed MPERS's board of trustees’ decision that Tinnin's monthly benefit should be $1,353.88, and concluded that the decision was "unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or otherwise involv[ed] an abuse of discretion." The Judgment also concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to prohibit MPERS from reducing Tinnin's monthly benefit from the amount communicated in the July 27, 2009 letter because: MPERS's mistaken calculation constituted affirmative misconduct; Tinnin relied on the July 27, 2009 letter to make retirement plans; and Tinnin suffered, and would continue to suffer, financial injury if MPERS were allowed to recalculate her monthly benefit to be $1,353.88.

The Judgment further concluded that the plain language of section 104.200 and section 104.1060 permit MPERS to correct a calculation error only if doing so is "practicable," which the court interpreted to mean "reasonable." The Judgment concluded that it is not reasonable for MPERS to reduce Tinnin's monthly payment nine years after its calculation error, as doing so would "financially devastate Plaintiff, who had...