Talbott v. Independent School Dist. of Des Moines
| Decision Date | 04 August 1941 |
| Docket Number | 45629. |
| Citation | 299 N.W. 556,230 Iowa 949 |
| Parties | TALBOTT v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF DES MOINES et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Loy Ladd, Judge.
A certiorari proceeding to review the action of the Board of Directors of the Independent School District of Des Moines in its capacity as Board of Trustees of the Pension and Annuity Retirement System for the teachers of said school district, in denying the claim of plaintiff for monthly annuities from June 5, 1935, to December 20, 1938. From a judgment sustaining the writ and ordering the payment of $1,697, the defendants have appealed.
The judgment is modified and affirmed.
Hutchinson & Hutchinson and Herrick, Sloan & Langdon, all of Des Moines, for appellants.
Strock, Woods & Dyer, of Des Moines, for appellee.
The statutory provisions involved in this action were enacted in 1917 by the 37th General Assembly, Chapter 387 of its laws, and appear as Code Sections 4345, 4346 and 4347. The first of these sections provided that any independent school district having a population of seventy-five thousand or more might establish a pension and annuity system for the public school teachers of the district. The other two sections are as follows:
By amendment, Section 4345 has been broadened to include other independent districts. Chapter 110, 43rd G. A. Section 4346, was amended by the 45th G. A., Chapter 121 (14) by striking out " two-tenths" and substituting " one-twentieth" . This section as amended was repealed by the 46th G. A., Chapter 40, approved April 29, 1935 and effective by publication May 2, 1935, and re-enacted by the same act in the form as it appears in the Codes of 1935 and 1939. As there provided, the assessment against the teachers may be increased by the board, with the consent of a majority of the teachers, and the annual tax levy may be increased up to the amount raised by the assessment against the teachers. These amendments are of no materiality except as they broaden the perspective of the matter for determination.
On April 22, 1918 the defendant Board, pursuant to said enabling statute, by Rule XIX-A, effective in September following, established a pension and retirement system for the teachers of the district. Such sections of the Rule or parts of sections as are material, are as follows:
" Section II. Amount of Pension. Any teacher who has completed 30 or more years of service not less than fifteen years of which shall have been in the public schools of Des Moines and shall have attained the age of fifty-five years and who shall have complied with Section V hereof, may retire upon an annual annuity of $480.00 payable quarterly * * *.
Section III. Retirement for Disability. Any teacher having twenty years of service, ten of which shall have been in the public schools of Des Moines may be retired for such physical or mental disability as disqualifies her from continuing successfully in the work of teaching upon such proportion of $480.00 as her age shall bear to 55, the $200.00 contribution to the Permanent fund to be made as in Section V. Proof of disability shall be by affidavit of two physicians appointed by the Board and such other evidence as the Board may require.
Section V. Total Payment to Funds Required. Each teacher must pay into the Current fund hereinafter defined $200.00 before she can take advantage of the pension benefits. * * *
Section VIII. Current Fund-How Created and Used. The Current fund shall be used for the payment of annuities and expenses. It shall be created as follows:
a. By the amount raised by a .2 mill tax, levied annually on all the taxable property in the school district.
b. By the amount raised by retaining annually one per cent of the salaries of the teachers of this district. * * *
Section XI. Not Transferable nor Subject to Execution. No teacher shall have any vested interest in or to the funds created hereby or any portion thereof and the same may not be sold, assigned or aliened but the said funds shall be held in trust by the Board of Directors solely for the support of retired teachers. No heirs, legatees, creditors, or assignees shall be entitled to any portion of the said teacher retirement fund hereby created and the interest of any teachers therein may not be subject to garnishment or execution. In case of attempt to sell, assign, or transfer the right to a pension hereunder, the board reserves the right to cancel any or all further payments thereof.
Section XII. Revision. The Board reserves the right to modify these rules or any of them as may be necessary from time to time."
The plaintiff was born May 29, 1876, although her birth date appeared in the records of the defendant as May 29, 1885. There is no question that she has taught more than the 30 years necessary for retirement, and that 29 of these years were in the defendant school district. After teaching 2 years in Clarke County, Iowa, she came to Des Moines in 1906 and began teaching in the schools of the defendant in September of that year. From that time she taught continuously in those schools until the 5th day of June, 1935. During the last few years her work was not satisfactory to her superiors. Prior to the execution of her last contract on May 21, 1934, she was told by the superintendent that unless her work was satisfactory during the coming year, she would not be rehired. At that time she was eligible to retire under Rule XIX-A. She had taught 31 years, as above set out. She was more than 55, and almost 58, years old. Assessments had been deducted from her pay in excess of $200, as provided in section V of the Rule. She did not desire to retire but wished to continue teaching. She was told by her superiors before the close of the 1934-1935 school year that she would not be rehired. That year ended on June 5, 1935. She was not re-employed by the defendant school and has done no teaching since that date. In her record as a teacher, kept by the defendants, is the following entry: " Dropped June 7, 1935." She importuned the superintendent and members of the Board repeatedly to be permitted to continue teaching but was told definitely that she was through teaching in the Des Moines schools.
In the Minutes of the Board of September 17, 1935, it appears that a committee of the Board made the following report:
It is conceded by defendants that this leave of absence was not requested by plaintiff and was granted without her knowledge. So far as the record shows, her first knowledge of it came to her in a letter written to her by the acting superintendent under date of June 4, 1936. Subsequent leaves of absence were granted her by the Board covering the years 1936, 1937 and 1938. They were all without her request. They were granted by the Board with the kindest of intentions and for the purpose of protecting and preserving her pension and retirement rights, under the new rules for the retirement system, adopted March 6, 1936. Section V of these rules provided that any member who shall have reached the age of 60 years " and shall be in active service or on leave of absence shall be retired." Section VI had a similar provision for retirement for disability.
From 1936 on, the superintendent and some of the Board members were urging her to apply for disability pension under Section III of Rule XIX-A, or under Section VI of the new rules. This was because their records showed she was not old enough to get a retirement pension. The plaintiff insisted that she was not ill or under any disability, and continued to ask that she be re-employed, until in the summer or fall of 1938. It appears that in 1914, those in charge of the defendant school gave to each teacher a printed, five by eight inch card, with blanks on each side, with instructions that the data specified, with respect to school preparation, and schools taught, be filled out. At the top of the card beneath the printing " Date of Birth" appears the written figures " 1885 year 5 Mo. 29 Da." The plaintiff testified that while she had no recollection of filling out the card, she thought most of the writing was hers, but that the written figures stating the date of her birth were not correct and were not placed on the card by her, and that she never saw the figures on the card until in the summer of 1940. The data after 1914 is in a different handwriting from the data before 1914. While the trial court made no specific finding that she did not make the figures as to her age, such a finding may be implied from the judgment adverse to defendants. This case is not triable de novo on appeal and we are bound by the finding of the trial court. There is no testimony disputing that of the plaintiff, and the card which has been certified to us, does not appear to refute her testimony. In our view of the case, the fact that her age appears incorrectly on the card is of little materiality. Plaintiff testified that she first learned that her age was incorrectly noted on the card, from a letter which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial