South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System v. City of Spartanburg
| Decision Date | 23 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23184,23184 |
| Citation | 301 S.C. 188,391 S.E.2d 239 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | S.C. POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant, v. CITY OF SPARTANBURG, Respondent. . Heard |
T.E. Walsh and William E. Walsh, both of Gaines & Walsh, Spartanburg, for respondent.
This case involves a municipal employer's refusal to contribute its share to the South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System to enable an employee to upgrade his retirement benefits. The employee failed to file a written request and pay his special contribution prior to retirement in strict compliance with the governing statute. S.C.Code Ann. § 9-11-210(3).
In this case, Winston Loftis was an employee of the City of Spartanburg. His employment was terminated on February 4, 1986, after he had suffered a heart attack. On that same date, a request was made by the City of Spartanburg to the South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System for an estimate of his disability payments. On April 8, 1986, the Medical Board of South Carolina Retirement Systems approved Loftis' application for disability retirement. Loftis made an oral request prior to May 6, 1986, to have calculated the cost for upgrading his benefits from Class I to Class II. The calculations were given to Loftis on June 16, 1986. He received his first retirement check on May 31, 1986. He paid his special contribution in the amount of $11,631.97 on July 18, 1986. For Mr. Loftis, the difference between Class I and II benefits is approximately $500 per month.
The Retirement System then notified the City that it was required to make its contribution in the amount of $6,693.36 pursuant to § 9-11-220(2)(b). The City refused on the grounds that Loftis had failed to make a written request and pay his special contribution prior to retirement.
An Order dated August 22, 1988, was issued by the trial judge holding that the City did not have to make the contribution because Loftis has failed to make a written request and failed to pay the contribution prior to retirement. The Retirement System appeals.
Subsection (3) of § 9-11-210 provides that an employee may upgrade his benefits by filing a written notice and paying his special contribution prior to retirement. The Retirement System contends that the written notice and payment requirements in § 9-11-210(3) are directory rather than mandatory. They argue that the statute merely governs procedure, time and method as opposed to substance and therefore the transaction should not be invalidated where there was substantial compliance.
Generally speaking, those provisions which are a mere matter of form, or which are not material, do not affect any substantial right, and do not relate to the essence of the thing to be done so that compliance is a matter of convenience rather than substance, are considered to be directory. This is true of statutory provisions for the expeditious, proper, or orderly conduct of business merely.
73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 19 (1974).
The viewpoint that statutory provisions as to the precise time when a thing is to be done are regarded as directory is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys.
...as agencies. See, e.g., Kennedy v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 345 S.C. 339, 549 S.E.2d 243, 251 (2001); S.C. Police Officers Ret. Sys. v. City of Spartanburg, 301 S.C. 188, 391 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1990). At bottom, we conclude that the relevant indicators strongly indicate that the Retirement System and ......
-
Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys.
...as agencies. See, e.g., Kennedy v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 345 S.C. 339, 549 S.E.2d 243, 251 (2001) ; S.C. Police Officers Ret. Sys. v. City of Spartanburg, 301 S.C. 188, 391 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1990).At bottom, we conclude that the relevant indicators strongly indicate that the Retirement System and ......
-
Stogsdill v. Anthony Keck & the S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...State Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm'n, 303 S.C. 143, 147, 399 S.E.2d 434, 436 (Ct. App. 1990); S.C. Police Officers Retirement Sys. v. City of Spartanburg, 301 S.C. 188, 391 S.E.2d 239 (1990); Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 398 S.C. 62, 80, 727 S.E.2d 605, 614 (2011); ......
-
Richland Cnty. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue
...the legislature's use of the term "must" in a statute means that the action is mandatory. S.C. Police Officers Ret. Sys. v. City of Spartanburg , 301 S.C. 188, 191, 391 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1990). "Under the rules of statutory interpretation, use of words such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’ indicates the......