Withers v. Register, 36120
| Decision Date | 15 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 36120,36120 |
| Parties | WITHERS et al. v. REGISTER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Whelchel, Whelchel & Carlton, Hoyt H. Whelchel, Jr., Moultrie, for appellants.
C. Saxby Chambliss, Moultrie, for appellees.
The city established by ordinance in 1966 a retirement plan for its employees supported by employer and employee contributions. Early retirement benefits were established in amounts less than an employee's normal age 65 retirement benefits. The plan was amended by ordinance in 1970 for the purpose of establishing minimum retirement benefits for both early and normal date retirement. This amendment omitted as to early retirement benefits, but included as to normal age 65 retirement benefits, a mathematical factor that had been included in the written recommendations of the city's actuaries regarding the manner in which both early and normal retirement benefits should be calculated. This omission later was discovered and the plan was amended by ordinance in 1975 to correct this oversight.
If the early retirement benefits of Register, et al. (hereinafter "the employees") are calculated based upon the 1975 amendment, they will receive payments in amounts less than their normal retirement benefits would have been at age 65. If, on the other hand, their early retirement benefits are calculated on the basis set forth in the 1970 amendment, the payments will exceed by some 200 to 300 percent the benefits they would have received upon normal retirement at age 65.
The city contends that it is entitled to correct the typographical mistake that resulted in the factor being omitted from the formula. The employees contend that the 1975 amendment cannot be applied to them so as to divest them of the early retirement benefits granted by the 1970 amendment.
1. Long before the rule was recognized generally by the courts of the several states, it was the law of this state that a statute or ordinance establishing a retirement plan for government employees becomes a part of an employee's contract of employment if the employee contributes at any time any amount toward the benefits he is to receive, and if the employee performs services while the law is in effect; and that the impairment clause of our constitution (Art. I, Sec. I, Par. VII, Constitution of Georgia of 1976; Code Ann. § 2-107) precludes the application of an amendatory statute or ordinance in the calculation of the employee's retirement benefits if the effect of the amendment is to reduce rather than increase the benefits payable. It is not necessary for an application of this rule that the rights of the employee shall have become vested under the terms of the retirement plan while the amendment is in effect. Rather, if the employee performs services during the effective dates of the legislation, the benefits are constitutionally vested, precluding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strong v. Police Pension and Retirement Bd.
...v. State Employees' Retirement System, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 83, 626 A.2d 679, 682 (1993), reconsideration denied, (1993); Withers v. Register, 246 Ga. 158, 269 S.E.2d 431-32 (1980); State v. McCarty, 76 Idaho 153, 279 P.2d 879-80 (1955); Board of Control of the Employees' Retirement Sys. of Alaba......
-
Dekalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Gold
...tort claims against the school district). 52.See Dollar, 232 Ga.App. at 522(2), 502 S.E.2d 472. 53.Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX(e). 54.Withers v. Register, 246 Ga. 158, 159(1), 269 S.E.2d 431 (1980); see Plymel v. Teachers Retirement Sys., 281 Ga. 409, 412(4), 637 S.E.2d 379 (2006).......
-
In the Matter of Strong v. State, 2005 OK 45 (OK 6/21/2005), 99408.
...v. State Employees' Retirement Bd., 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 83, 626 A.2d 679, 682 (1993), reconsideration denied, (1993); Withers v. Register, 246 Ga. 158, 269 S.E.2d 431-32 (1980); State v. McCarty, 76 Idaho 153, 279 P.2d 879-80 (1955); Board of Control of the Employees' Retirement Sys. of Alabama ......
-
City of Waycross v. Bennett
...of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed."12 As our Supreme Court noted in Withers v. Register :13 It [is] the law of this state that a statute or ordinance establishing a retirement plan for government employees becomes a part of an employ......
-
Jeffrey B. Ellman & Daniel J. Merrett, Pensions and Chapter 9: Can Municipalities Use Bankruptcy to Solve Their Pension Woes?
...of compensation, and a vested contractual right to pension benefits accrues upon acceptance of employment.”); Withers v. Register, 269 S.E.2d 431, 432–33 (Ga. 1980) (holding that public employees possess a contractual right to receive pension benefits if they (a) contribute any amount towar......
-
Hannah Heck, Solving Insolvent Public Pensions: the Limitations of the Current Bankruptcy Option
...Proceedings AgainstErickson, 556 N.W.2d 99 (Wis. 1996); Pineman v. Oechslin, 488 A.2d 803, 808–09 (Conn. 1985); Withers v.Register, 269 S.E.2d 431, 432–33 (Ga. 1980).MICH. CONST. art. IX, § 24 (“The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its p......