Albuquerque v. State Employees Retirement Commission
10 A.3d 38
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Plaintiff Sharon Lee Albuquerque seeks survivor benefits from the Municipal Employees' Retirement Fund after the decedent spouse elected a 50% survivor option but later died.
- Decedent Anthony Albuquerque, a Windsor officer and fund member, retired in 1986 and elected to waive the spousal survivor benefit, receiving a straight life annuity.
- Decedent died July 8, 2004; plaintiff requested 50% of the decedent's benefit in February 2005; the division denied in April 2005 due to the election.
- Defendant Retirement Commission denied a posthumous change to the election in 2006 following a subcommittee recommendation.
- In August 2008, the defendant issued a declaratory ruling denying posthumous change, citing no statutory basis or window to alter the election; plaintiff appealed under § 4-183(a).
- Trial court dismissed for lack of standing, holding plaintiff was not aggrieved by the declaratory ruling because § 7-439g presumes a spousal benefit but allows contrary election, and decedent elected to foreclose it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has statutory aggrievement under § 4-183(a). | Plaintiff contends aggrievement exists as a beneficiary of the statute protecting surviving spouses. | Defendant argues plaintiff is not within the class protected by § 7-439g. | No standing; plaintiff not aggrieved under § 7-439g. |
| Interpretation of § 7-439g(a) and the spousal presumption. | Statute preserved spousal benefits absent the decedent’s contrary election; ERISA later required consent for waivers. | Statute plainly permits a contrary election; the decedent elected to waive survivor benefits, defeating plaintiff's claim. | Statute plain and unambiguous; presumption exists but may be overridden by a valid election; plaintiff not within protected class. |
| Effect of decedent's election on plaintiff's rights. | The division's or regulator's interpretation should be reconsidered to allow survivor benefits. | Decedent’s election bound; no basis to posthumously change under the statute or regulations. | Decedent’s election precluded survivor benefits; plaintiff not aggrieved. |
| Whether § 7-448-2 of the Regulations was repealed or controls standing. | § 7-448-2 should govern survivor benefits; not repealed by later statutes. | § 7-448-2 was superseded by § 7-439g; conflict implies repeal of the regulation. | Regulation repealed by later statutes; not controlling for standing. |
| Whether plaintiff’s due process or equal protection claims affect standing. | Plaintiff was deprived of access to courts and rights to challenge the ruling. | Standing analysis governs; due process/equal protection not dispositive of aggrievement. | Not reached; standing defeats review. |
Key Cases Cited
- McWeeny v. Hartford, 287 Conn. 56 (2008) (standing to challenge agency action limited by aggrievement)
- Terese B. v. Commissioner of Children & Families, 68 Conn. App. 223 (2002) (statutory aggrievement—zone of interests)
- Windels v. Environmental Protection Commission, 284 Conn. 268 (2007) (statutory interpretation under § 1-2z; extratextual evidence limited)
- St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538 (2003) (subject matter jurisdiction; plenary review standard)
- Celentano v. Rocque, 282 Conn. 645 (2007) (analysis of agency conclusions and standard of review under UAPA)