Iii v. Town of Middlebury
Decision Date | 06 September 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 32271.,32271. |
Citation | 25 A.3d 728,131 Conn.App. 289 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Stephen R. FERRUCCI IIIv.TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas G. Moukawsher, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).Nicole D. Dorman, West Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).GRUENDEL, LAVINE and BEAR, Js.GRUENDEL, J.
This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of a municipal retirement plan. The plaintiff, Stephen R. Ferrucci III, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Middlebury.1 He claims that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to (1) his eligibility for a “normal retirement” benefit pursuant to the provisions of the defendant's retirement plan (plan) and (2) his claim of promissory estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; see Martinelli v. Fusi, 290 Conn. 347, 350, 963 A.2d 640 (2009); reveals the following facts. The plaintiff was born on November 2, 1949, and was hired by the defendant as a full-time police officer on December 1, 1974. He was a member of a bargaining unit comprised of police officers that negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements with the defendant, including one effective July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1990. That agreement required, inter alia, the defendant to “maintain in effect for the duration of this [a]greement the [plan] dated July 1, 1967, as amended on February 14, 1973.”
The plaintiff retired as a full-time police officer at the age of thirty-eight on October 24, 1988. At that time, he had attained almost fourteen years of credited service with the defendant. In his deposition testimony, which was submitted in support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff averred that he “left that job [with the defendant] for ... a better working schedule” and further that he had secured a position with “Local 760 of the ... Service Employees International Union,” with whom he subsequently worked for more than two decades.
Seven years after terminating his employment with the defendant, the plaintiff contacted the defendant's finance director seeking information about his retirement benefit under the plan. The finance director, in turn, contacted the plan's actuary, who, in a letter dated December 4, 1995, calculated that the plaintiff would become eligible for a monthly benefit of $658.89 pursuant to the normal retirement provisions of the plan beginning December 1, 2004. Once informed of that calculation, the plaintiff met with a financial advisor, modified certain contributions to a variable annuity contract and made plans to retire from his current employment at a date certain.2
In 2002, the defendant's retirement committee consulted with the plan's actuary. In response, the actuary prepared a December 12, 2002 letter, a copy of which was provided to the plaintiff, which stated that the plaintiff would not be entitled to a monthly benefit pursuant to the normal retirement provisions of the plan on December 1, 2004. Rather, it stated that the plaintiff could receive a reduced monthly benefit of $263.56 pursuant to the early retirement provisions of the plan on that date and would qualify for the $658.89 normal retirement benefit on December 1, 2014. On October 15, 2004, the plaintiff agreed to receive the reduced benefit while reserving his right to contest the denial of the normal retirement benefit.3
The plaintiff commenced the present litigation in 2006. His March 21, 2007 amended complaint contained two counts against the defendant alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. On June 8, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, to which it attached in support thereof a copy of the plan and portions of the plaintiff's deposition testimony. See Practice Book § 17–45. Following argument thereon, the court rendered summary judgment in the defendant's favor, and this appeal followed.
Before considering the precise claims presented on appeal, we note the well established standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiner v. Clinton, 106 Conn.App. 379, 382–83, 942 A.2d 469 (2008).
The plaintiff first contends that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to his eligibility for a normal retirement benefit under the plan. We disagree.
Resolution of the plaintiff's claim involves interpretation of the plan. “It is axiomatic that a collective bargaining agreement is a contract.” D'Agostino v. Housing Authority, 95 Conn.App. 834, 838, 898 A.2d 228, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 905, 907 A.2d 88 (2006); see also O'Connor v. Waterbury, 286 Conn. 732, 743–49, 945 A.2d 936 (2008) ( ). Similarly, our Supreme Court has held that statements contained in a written retirement plan give rise to an employer-employee contract. See Dolak v. Sullivan, 145 Conn. 497, 503, 144 A.2d 312 (1958).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) O'Connor v. Waterbury, supra, 286 Conn. at 743–44, 945 A.2d 936.
The plan specifies four kinds of retirement: normal retirement, early retirement, automatic retirement and disability retirement. The plaintiff concedes that he is not eligible for either an automatic retirement or a disability retirement. Accordingly, the salient inquiry is whether he qualifies for a normal requirement or early retirement under the plan.
As a preliminary matter, Article II of the plan sets forth various definitions to be used therein. In Article II, § 20, “normal retirement date” is defined in relevant part as follows: “[T]he ‘Normal Retirement Date’ of a policeman means the first day of the month coincident with or next following the later of (i) the date on which he completes twenty-five (25) years of Credited Service or (ii) the date on which he attains age fifty-five (55), but in no event later than (iii) his sixty-fifth (65th) birthday.” (Emphasis added.) The term “normal retirement date” is used in both the normal retirement and early retirement sections of the plan.
The requirements for a normal retirement are set forth in Article V, § 1, of the plan. That section provides in relevant part that
The requirements for an early retirement are set forth in Article V, § 2, of the plan, which provides in relevant part that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonner v. City of New Haven
... ... Poole v. Waterbury, 266 Conn. 68, 87, 831 A.2d 211 ... (2003) (holding that former employee and town had equal ... bargaining power) ... "A contract must be construed to effectuate the intent ... of the parties, ... also extends to other claims including unjust enrichment and ... quantum meruit." Ferrucci v. Middlebury, 131 ... Conn.App. 289, 304, 25 A.3d 728, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 944, ... 31 A.3d 382 (2011) (court applied Fennell doctrine ... ...
-
A.C. Consulting, LLC v. Alexion Pharm., Inc.
...thereon, resulting in some detriment to the party claiming the estoppel, also is required." (Emphasis added.) Ferrucci v. Middlebury , 131 Conn. App. 289, 305, 25 A.3d 728, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 944, 31 A.3d 382 (2011). Similarly, in order to recover on a claim of negligent misrepresentat......
-
MTM Family, Ltd. P'ship v. City of Bridgeport
... ... The party claiming estoppel has the burden of proof ... Levine v. Town of Sterling , 300 Conn. 521, 535, 16 ... A.3d 664 (2011), quoting O'Connor v. City of ... Waterbury ... 286 Conn. 732, 758, 945 A.2d 936 ... resulting in some detriment to the party claiming the ... estoppel, also is required." Ferrucci v. Town of ... Middlebury , 131 Conn.App. 289, 305, 25 A.3d 728, cert ... denied, 302 Conn. 944, 31 A.3d 382 (2011). Moreover, it is ... the burden of the person ... ...
-
Maturo v. State Employees Retirement Commission
...case. Stated differently, a party claiming estoppel must show reasonable and detrimental reliance. See Ferrucci v. Middlebury, 131 Conn.App. 289, 305, 25 A.3d 728 (2011). The commission noted that the plaintiff was " plainly warned that his re-employment as Mayor (for which he is being comp......