Jones v. STATE EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT BD.

Decision Date23 July 2003
Citation830 A.2d 607
PartiesSandra JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Sandra Jones, petitioner, pro se.

Brian E. McDonough and M. Catherine Nolan, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Anne S. Maxwell, Philadelphia, for intervenor, Sarah E. Jones.

BEFORE: SMITH-RIBNER, Judge, LEAVITT, Judge, MIRARCHI, Senior Judge.

OPINION BY Judge LEAVITT.

Sandra Jones (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the State Employees' Retirement Board (Board) denying her request to have her children named beneficiaries of their deceased father's retirement plan.

Eugene Jones, Jr. (Decedent) became a member of the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) on September 13, 1976 upon his employment by the Department of Education.1 When he enrolled in SERS, Decedent completed a form that nominated his wife, Sarah Elizabeth Jones, the principal beneficiary of his SERS retirement account and their children, Dwayne Eugene Jones and Jocelyn Beth Jones, as contingent beneficiaries. Decedent never amended that nomination.2 In December 1993, Decedent began a relationship with Claimant. He and Claimant had two children together, Eugena R. Jones and Eugene Jones, III. Despite his relationship with Claimant, Decedent remained married and resided with his wife, Sarah Jones, until his death on July 8, 2001.

On July 18, 2001, Claimant, as guardian for Eugene R. Jones and Eugene Jones III, filed a petition with this Court seeking to enjoin SERS from distributing Decedent's account in accordance with the nomination of beneficiaries form that he executed in 1983.3 On August 14, 2001, this Court issued a preliminary injunction that, inter alia, directed SERS not to disburse the contested funds during the pendency of an administrative hearing to determine the appropriate beneficiaries.

After hearing evidence on the matter, on August 30, 2002, the hearing examiner issued an order recommending that Claimant's claim be denied because Claimant failed to establish a legal basis to disregard Decedent's nomination of beneficiaries. Claimant filed exceptions to this recommendation, and on January 13, 2002, the Board issued an adjudication adopting the hearing examiner's recommendation. Claimant, pro se, petitioned for this Court's review.4

On appeal, Claimant contends that the Board erred. She contends that the form by which Decedent nominated beneficiaries of his retirement benefits should be modified to include her children because conditions have changed since 1983 when the form was executed. Claimant contends that equity requires that her children be named beneficiaries since they depended upon Decedent for financial support.5

The State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101-5955.1, establishes the procedures by which a SERS member nominates his beneficiary. Section 5907(e) of the Retirement Code provides,

(e) Beneficiary for death benefits.—Every member shall nominate a beneficiary by written designation filed with the board as provided in section 5906(d) or (e) (relating to duties of heads of departments) to receive the death benefit payable under section 5707 (relating to death benefits) or the benefit payable under the provisions of Option 1 of section 5705(a)(1) (relating to member's options). Such nomination may be changed at any time by the member by written designation filed with the board. A member may also nominate a contingent beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive the death benefit provided under section 5707 or the benefit payable under the provisions of Option 1 of section 5705(a)(1).

71 Pa.C.S. § 5907(e)(emphasis added). The Retirement Code defines the beneficiary as "[t]he person or persons last designated in writing to the board by a member to receive his accumulated deductions or a lump sum benefit upon the death of such member." 71 Pa.C.S. § 5102 (emphasis added). The Board must distribute the benefits to the beneficiary designated in writing. 71 Pa.C.S. § 5905(g).6

Here, Decedent completed a nomination of beneficiaries form in writing on September 13, 1976, that listed his wife, Sarah Jones, as the principal beneficiary and Dwayne Eugene Jones and Jocelyn Beth Jones as contingent beneficiaries of his retirement account. SERS Exhibit 2. This was the first and last written designation made by Decedent to the Board. Thus, the Board was required to find that Sarah Jones is the beneficiary of Decedent's SERS account and that Dwayne Eugene Jones and Jocelyn Beth Jones are the contingent beneficiaries.

Claimant argues that the Retirement Code should be construed to allow the modification of the form because Claimant's children were born twenty years after Decedent filled out the form,7 and the Retirement Code contains no provisions for afterborn children.8 Because Claimant's children relied on Decedent for financial support,9 a modification to Decedent's last written designation of benefited should be ordered.

The Retirement Code cannot be revised by the courts to achieve equitable results. The member's written nomination controls no matter how seemingly harsh the result. See Hess v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board, 75 Pa.Cmwlth. 25, 460 A.2d 1231 (1983)(denied widow's challenge that her deceased husband intended her and their children to receive benefits when he nominated his father the beneficiary on his retirement form); Titler v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 768 A.2d 899 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001)(denied estranged wife's challenge that she was entitled to benefits when a deceased husband changed the beneficiaries on his retirement form to his father and brother after divorce proceedings commenced with this wife).

Were this Court to add Eugena R. Jones and Eugene Jones, III as beneficiaries on the nomination of beneficiaries form,10 we would act in derogation of the Retirement Code. However, "[w]hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." Section 1921(b) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Here, the plain language of the Retirement Code directs the result reached by the Board. It is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to revise the statute to address the circumstances presented by Claimant and her children.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board's determination.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2003, the order of the State Employees' Retirement Board dated January 13, 2003, in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

1. In 1983, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education became his employer.

2. SERS members are not required to renew their forms but can update their forms at any time. SERS reminds members to update their forms by placing reminders in their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Weaver v. State Employees' Ret. Bd.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 23 October 2015
    ...by the courts to achieve equitable results." Mager v. State Emps.' Ret. Bd., 849 A.2d 287, 292–93 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (citing Jones v. State Emps.' Ret. Bd., 830 A.2d 607 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 728, 847 A.2d 1289 (2004) ).The Retirement Code defines credited service as "state......
  • Marinucci v. STATE EMPLOYEES'RET. SYSTEM
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 18 October 2004
    ...equitable results." Mager v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 849 A.2d 287, 292-293 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (citing Jones v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 830 A.2d 607 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 577 Pa. 728, 847 A.2d 1289 (2004)). Moreover, "[w]hen the words ......
  • Marinucci v. State Employees' Retirement System, No. 919 C.D. 2004 (PA 12/29/2004)
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 29 December 2004
    ...equitable results." Mager v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 849 A.2d 287, 292-293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citing Jones v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 830 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 577 Pa. 728, 847 A.2d 1289 (2004)). Moreover, "[w]hen the wo......
  • Shinkman v. State Employees' Retirement Bd.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 16 October 2008
    ...evidence, whether the decision is in accordance with the law, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Jones v. State Employees' Retirement Board, 830 A.2d 607 4. Under the Statutory Construction Act, the object of interpretation and construction of all statutes is to ascertain and e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT