Chapin v. City Commission of Fresno
| Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
| Citation | 149 Cal.App.2d 40,307 P.2d 657 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Albert E. CHAPIN, Petitioner and Respondent, v. The CITY COMMISSION OF The City of FRESNO, State of California, and Gordon G. Dunn, Commissioner of Public Safety and Welfare, A. Segel, Commissioner of Public Works, James P. Owens, Commissioner of Finance, J. D. Stephens, Jr., J. O. Thorpe, Hattie Mae Hammat and Ted C. Wills, Legislative Commissioners; and The Retirement Board of The Fresno Fire and Police Retirement System and Gordon G. Dunn, Sgt. Harry L. E'Bell, F.P.D., Capt. M. H. Inman, F.F.D., Rollin A. Pickford, Sr., and James P. Owens, constituting the members of the said Retirement Board of the Foresno Fire and Police Retirement System, Respondents and Appellants. Civ. 5369. |
C. M. Ozias, Fresno, and James C. Purcell, San Francisco, for appellants.
Manfredo, Best & Forbes and A. A. George, Fresno, for respondent.
Albert E. Chapin, petitioner and respondent herein, was employed as a member of the police department of the city of Fresno on March 15, 1915, and excepting the period between March 12, 1920 and July 1, 1920, continued in said employment until January 17, 1952, at which time he was retired by the order and direction of the pension board of said city. Chapin made no request for retirement and the order retiring him was made without notice to him. The action of the pension board was approved by the city commission of the city of Fresno.
At the time of his retirement Chapin held the rank of assistant chief of police of the city, which rank he had held since September 16, 1939, and the salary attached to the rank of assistant chief was $545 per month. This salary was increased in various amounts between September 1, 1952, and the date of the judgment herein, at which time it was $660 per month.
Pension ordinance No. 1021 of the city of Fresno became effective November 11, 1920, and section 2 thereof provided that any member of the fire or police departments who had served in such department for thirty years, in the aggregate, in any capacity or rank whatever, should, on his request or by order of the pension commission, if it be deemed for the good of the department, be retired from further service and that thereafter, during his lifetime, he should be paid a pension in equal monthly installments equal to two-thirds of the annual salary attached to the rank or position held by him in such department for one year prior to the date of his retirement. Ordinance No. 1415 of said city, effective October 8, 1927, repealed ordinance No. 1021 but reenacted the above provisions of section 2 of said ordinance, and in addition provided that in the event of a subsequent change in salary, the pension should be two-thirds of such salary, as changed. Ordinance No. 1512, effective September 22, 1928, amended section 2 of ordinance No. 1415 to provide that in no event should such pension exceed the sum of $175 per month. Ordinance No. 1934, effective March 26, 1933, again amended section 2 of ordinance No. 1415 to provide that in no event should such pension exceed the sum of $150 per month. Ordinance No. 3116, effective May 1, 1945, repealed ordinance No. 1415, as amended, by reenacting the same provisions as contained in section 2 of ordinance No. 1415, as amended, with the same maximum limitation of $150 per month. Ordinance No. 4342, effective January 16, 1954, amended section 2 of ordinance No. 3116 to increase the maximum limitation from $150 to $200 per month.
On April 9, 1953, a written claim and demand for the payment of moneys due Chapin under the provisions of ordinance No. 3116 was served on the clerk of the city commission, and no payment having been made to Chapin pursuant to said claim and demand, on August 4, 1953, he served a written claim and demand on the clerk of the city commission for the payment to him, under the provisions of section 2 of ordinance No. 1415 of the sum of $363.33 for each month from the date of his retirement. On January 9, 1956, Chapin filed his first amended petition in the trial court in which he sought an alternative writ of mandate compelling the respondents to determine the amount of pension due him as provided by section 2 of ordinance No. 1415 of said city, and to order payment thereof or show cause why it should not do so. The trial court ordered the issuance of the alternative writ and after a demurrer to the petition was overruled and an answer was filed, the matter was tried by the court, and judgment was entered in favor of the petitioner, Chapin. On March 2, 1956, a peremptory writ of mandate was issued requiring the respondents to determine the amount due petitioner under and by virtue of the provisions of section 2 or ordinance No. 1415 of said city and to compute the pension and interest as therein set forth and computed on the basis of two-thirds of petitioner's annual salary. The commissioner of finance of the city was ordered to pay the computed amounts and to pay petitioner thereafter, during his lifetime, in equal monthly installments, a yearly pension equal to two-thirds of the annual salary attached to the rank held by him for one year prior to the date of his retirement, as provided in section 2 of ordinance No. 1415 of said city, as orginally enacted.
The principal contention of appellants (respondents in the superior court) is that petitioner was deprived of no vested contractual or constitutional rights by the amendment and repeal of the provisions of ordinance No. 1021 and section 2 or ordinance No. 1415, as originally enacted. Petitioner contends in this connection that by rendering substantial services under ordinances 1021 and 1415, he acquired a vested contractual right to be paid a pension as provided by section 2 of ordinance No. 1415, as originally enacted, and that the provisions of the subsequent ordinances fixing a maximum limitation on the amount petitioner could receive as a pension constitute attempted unreasonable, ineffective and illegal modifications of petitioner's vested contractual rights. The trial court found in accordance with petitioner's contention and we conclude that its findings, conclusions and judgment are supported by substantial evidence and cannot be here disturbed.
Albert Chapin's right to a pension vested upon his acceptance of employment and performance of services under the provisions of ordinance No. 1415 of the city of Fresno. In Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal.2d 848, at page 852, 179 P.2d 799, at page 801, the court said:
In Wallace v. City of Fresno, 42 Cal.2d 180, 183, 265 P.2d 884, it was held that the right to a pension arises before the happening of the contingency which makes the pension payable, and it cannot be constitutionally abolished by subsequent changes in the law. Chapin, having accepted employment and rendered the services under the provisions of ordinances Nos. 1021 and 1415 of the city, was then entitled to retirement pay of two-thirds of the annual salary attached to the rank or position held by him in the police department for one year prior to the date of his retirement.
The next question is whether the city could thereafter lawfully change and reduce his pension allowance by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opinion of the Justices
...Beach, 139 Cal.App.2d 282, 293 P.2d 839 (1956). Glaeser v. Berkeley, 148 Cal.App.2d 614, 307 P.2d 61 (1957). Chapin v. City Commn. of Fresno, 149 Cal.App.2d 40, 307 P.2d 657 (1957). Abbott v. San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511, 332 P.2d 324 (1958). Phillis v. Santa Barbara, 229 Cal.App.2d 45, 40......
-
Abbott v. City of Los Angeles
...P.2d 839, reaching same result, in reliance upon the Allen case.) Following the Allen case, it was held in Chapin v. City Commission (1957), 149 Cal.App.2d 40, 44-45, 307 P.2d 657, that a change made by the city of Fresno in the method of computing pension benefits, from a fluctuating amoun......
-
Phillis v. City of Santa Barbara
...Angeles, 50 Cal.2d 438, 447, 326 P.2d 484; Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511, 517, 332 P.2d 324; Chapin v. City Commission, 149 Cal.App.2d 40, 44, 307 P.2d 657; Cochran v. City of Long Beach, 139 Cal.App.2d 282, 287-288, 293 P.2d 839; Adler v. City of Pasadena, 57 Cal.2d 609, ......
-
Jones v. Cheney
...that hold an employee obtained vested rights in a pension fund upon the acceptance of employment. See e.g. Chapin v. City Commissioner of Fresno, 149 Cal.App.2d 40, 307 P.2d 657; and Abbott v. San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511, 332 P.2d 324; which, although involving rights under a city charter......
-
Statutes as Contracts? The 'California Rule' and Its Impact on Public Pension Reform
...of insolvency”). 205. United Firefighters of L.A. City v. City of L.A., 259 Cal. Rptr. 65, 74 (Ct. App. 1989). 206. Chapin v. City Comn’n, 307 P.2d 657, 660 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1957). 207. Wisley v. City of San Diego, 10 Cal. Rptr. 765, 767–68 (Ct. App. 1961). 2012] STATUTES AS CONTRACTS? ......