Whitaker v. Utah State Retirement Bd.
| Decision Date | 25 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 20061103-CA.,20061103-CA. |
| Citation | 191 P.3d 814,2008 UT App 282 |
| Parties | Norman O. WHITAKER, Petitioner, v. The UTAH STATE RETIREMENT BOARD and The Utah Retirement Office, Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Phillip W. Dyer and Carey A. Seager, Salt Lake City, for Petitioner.
David B. Hansen and Liza J. Eves, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.
Before GREENWOOD, P.J., McHUGH and ORME, JJ.
¶ 1 This case presents the interesting question of whether an individual concurrently employed full-time by two governmental entities may accrue toward retirement more than one year of service credit—i.e., two years of service credit, one for each job—in any given year. We conclude that he cannot.
¶ 2 Norman O. Whitaker wants to retire. He is currently employed "full-time" by both the State of Utah and West Point City.1 He began working for the State on April 15, 1989, and for the City on January 1, 1994. Before working for the City, he worked for the Davis and Weber County Canal Agency for 3.5 years. All of these employers, as governmental entities, participate in the retirement programs of the Utah State Retirement Systems. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 49-11-101 to -13-701 (2002 & Supp.2007).
¶ 3 The state retirement programs are administered by the Utah State Retirement Office, also known as the Utah State Retirement Systems, and the Utah State Retirement Board. See id. §§ 49-11-201 to -203. Over the course of many years, the Retirement Office sent Whitaker annual statements summarizing his defined retirement benefits, including documentation of his accrued service credit attributable to each retirement system and employer.2 For example, his 2004 annual statement showed that he had accrued 3.5 years of service credit in the contributory local government system from his employment by the Davis and Weber County Canal Agency, 10.834 years of service credit in the noncontributory local government system from his employment by the City, and 15.654 years of service credit in the noncontributory state system from his employment by the State.
¶ 4 Though the statements show Whitaker's accrued service credit per system and employer, they do not show how those totals translate into actual benefits upon retirement. To determine that, a member must contact the Retirement Office, as instructed on the statements:
To determine a monthly allowance estimate go to the Utah Retirement System web site at www.urs.org and click on the Retirement Benefit Estimate Calculator link. Follow the guides and use information from this and previous statements to determine an estimated allowance.
If you are a member in more than one Retirement System, if you are a part-time elected or appointed official, or if you are employed with two or more employers at the same time, you will need to contact the Retirement Office.
¶ 5 In 2003, Whitaker began contacting the Retirement Office, requesting estimates of his retirement benefits. He claims that during one call he was told to just add the years of service credit shown on his annual statement to determine his total allowable credit. In November 2003, the Retirement Office sent him a retirement estimate informing him that he would accrue only 17.087 years of service credit toward retirement by May 16, 2006, if he continued to work full-time. Though he believed this estimate to be erroneous, Whitaker did nothing about it until August 2005, when he requested another estimate in preparation for his planned retirement.
¶ 6 The August estimate reflected the 17.087 years of service credit previously reported plus an additional three years of service credit that Whitaker had purchased for military service pursuant to Utah Code section 49-11-402. See Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-402 (2002). At a meeting held a couple of months later to clarify the information,3 Retirement Office employees confirmed that Whitaker would accrue, including the military credit he purchased, 20.087 years of service credit toward retirement by May 16, 2006, assuming continued full-time employment. Relying on Utah Code section 49-11-401(3)(c), see id. § 49-11-401(3)(c) (Supp. 2007), the employees also explained that Whitaker could not accrue more than one year of service credit in any given year.
¶ 7 In December 2005, Whitaker petitioned to retire with 31.616 years of service credit, an amount that reflects the sum total of his accrued service credit with each of his three state and local employers plus the military credit he purchased. The Retirement Office denied his request, and he appealed to the Retirement Board. After an evidentiary hearing, the Retirement Board upheld the denial. Whitaker then sought judicial review in this Court.
¶ 8 Whitaker raises four primary issues. First, he argues that the Retirement Board misinterpreted Utah Code section 49-11-401(3), that the statute's language is ambiguous, and that it should be construed liberally to provide him maximum benefits consistent with the purpose of the statutory retirement scheme. See id. § 49-11-103 (2002). Simply put, he contends that the Retirement Board erred in denying him retirement with 31.616 years of service credit because it misconstrued the statute to mean that he cannot accrue more than one year of service credit in any given year.
¶ 9 Second, Whitaker argues that the Retirement Board's decision constitutes a virtual forfeiture of his service credit for purposes of Utah Code section 49-11-403 and that he should be allowed to purchase these forfeited credits.4 See id. § 49-11-403(1)(d), (3) (Supp.2007). Whitaker asserts that the Retirement Board erred in determining otherwise.
¶ 10 Both of these issues require us to review the Retirement Board's interpretation of the relevant statutes. "[W]e review the Board's application or interpretation of a statute as a question of law under the correction-of-error standard."5 Sindt v. Retirement Bd., 2007 UT 16, ¶ 5, 157 P.3d 797. We will grant relief only if we determine, based on the record, that Whitaker was substantially prejudiced by the Retirement Board's erroneous interpretation or application of the law. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(d) (2004).
¶ 11 Third, Whitaker asserts that the Retirement Board is equitably estopped from denying him retirement with 31.616 years of service credit. This "claim presents a mixed question, which `involves the application of law to fact.'" Terry v. Retirement Bd., 2007 UT App 87, ¶ 8, 157 P.3d 362 (quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 33 n. 12, 70 P.3d 111). We review the underlying facts for clear error and the application of the law to those facts for correctness. See id.
¶ 12 Fourth, Whitaker argues that he was denied due process because the Retirement Board failed to adequately preserve a record of the proceedings below. This argument presents a question of law that we review for correctness. See id. ¶ 9.
¶ 13 Whitaker raises two issues of statutory interpretation. First, he asserts that the Retirement Board erred when it narrowly interpreted Utah Code section 49-11-401(3)(c) and (e) in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature's intent and the purpose of the statutory scheme, which is to provide maximum protection and benefit to public employees. Specifically, he believes the Board misread the statute to mean that he cannot accrue more than one year of service credit in any given year, even though he is working two full-time jobs.
¶ 14 Second, Whitaker argues that based on the Retirement Board's determination that he is only eligible for one year of service credit per year, his remaining "earned and paid service credit should qualify as `forfeited' service credit." Accordingly, he asserts, the Board erred in not at least permitting him to purchase such forfeited credit and apply it toward his retirement under section 49-11-403(1)(d). We address each argument in turn.
¶ 15 "Under our rules of statutory construction, we look first to the statute's plain language to determine its meaning." Sindt v. Retirement Bd., 2007 UT 16, ¶ 8, 157 P.3d 797 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the plain language of a statute is the "best evidence of the true intent and purpose of the Legislature in enacting [it]." Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903, 906 (Utah 1984). Because we presume that the Legislature uses statutory terms advisedly, we give effect to each "word, phrase, clause, and sentence where reasonably possible." Sindt, 2007 UT 16, ¶ 8, 157 P.3d 797 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Jensen, 679 P.2d at 906.
¶ 16 Whitaker contends that the Retirement Board interpreted section 49-11-401 too narrowly when it determined, based on subsections (3)(c) and (e), that he could not accrue more than one year of service credit in any given year, even though he is working two full-time jobs.6 Subsection (3) provides:
In the accrual of service credit, the following provisions apply:
(a) A person employed and compensated by a participating employer ... in a system ... shall receive service credit for the term of the employment provided that all required contributions are paid to the office.
(b) An allowance or other benefit may not accrue under this title which is based upon the same period of employment as has been the basis for any retirement benefits under some other public retirement system.
(c) The board shall fix the minimum time per day, per month, and per year upon the basis of which one year of service and proportionate parts of a year shall be credited toward qualification for retirement. Service may be computed on a fiscal or calendar year basis and portions of years served shall be accumulated and counted as service. In any event, all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Bean Techs. Corp. v. B GSE Grp., LLC
...made a blanket assertion that equitable estoppel precludes the enforcement of all three of the relevant contracts.316 Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Bd. , 2008 UT App 282, ¶ 22, 191 P.3d 814.317 Dkt. 126 at 26.318 Dkt. 154 at 29.319 See Dkt. 159 at 14–15.320 See supra note 299.321 Dkt. 129 at ......
-
Iota, LLC v. Davco Mgmt. Co.
...would result from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate such statement, admission, act, or failure to act.Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Bd., 2008 UT App 282, ¶ 22, 191 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks omitted). Davco cannot establish the third prong of the test—that it was inj......
-
Mcleod v. Ret. Bd.
...the Board's application or interpretation of a statute as a question of law under the correction-of-error standard.” Whitaker v. Utah State Retirement Bd., 2008 UT App 282, ¶ 10, 191 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 10 McLeod also contends that, even if the Board's reading of ......
-
Nielsen v. Ret. Bd.
...the Board’s application or interpretation of a statute as a question of law under the correction-of-error standard." Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Board , 2008 UT App 282, ¶ 10, 191 P.3d 814 (quotation simplified). We will grant relief only if we determine that Nielsen has been substantially ......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...189 P.3d 63; Questar Gas, 2007 UT 79, ¶ 48; Orchard Park, 2009 UT App 284, ¶ 8; Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Bd., 2008 UT App 282, ¶ 10, 191 P.3d 814; Mendoza v. Labor Comm'n, 2007 UT App 186, ¶ 5, 164 P.3d 447. In other words, appellate courts must be able to determine that the alleged erro......