Briese v. Montana Public Employees' Retirement Board, 285 P.3d 550

Erene Briese challenged MPERB after her late husband David designated their children as beneficiaries in 2006 while dissolution proceedings were pending.
David’s 2006 designation violated the dissolution court’s temporary restraining order restricting changes to insurance beneficiaries.
Erene learned of the 2006 change in 2008 and sought MPERA/MPERB to enforce the 2001 designation in her favor; MPERA initially honored the 2006 designation.
MPERB denied Erene’s request, finding waiver/ mootness and that TRO did not apply to SRS beneficiary designations.
The district court affirmed MPERB’s decision; this Court reversed, holding the 2006 designation invalid and that TRO barred changes to SRS beneficiaries during dissolution.
The Court remanded to declare the 2006 designation invalid and to determine proper beneficiary under the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness/waiver of challenge to designation	Erene did not waive rights by applying for benefits.	MPERB argued waiver via benefits application; mootness because relief impossible.	Not moot; waiver not established; merits reviewed.
Whether the TRO applies to the SRS beneficiary change	TRO prohibits changes to beneficiaries, including SRS.	TRO does apply to SRS changes; the 2006 designation was invalid.	TRO applies; 2006 designation void; revert to 2001 designation.

Med. Marijuana Growers Ass’n v. Corrigan, 281 P.3d 210 (2012 MT) (mootness and administrative review standards in MT APA)
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Stuivenga, 364 Mont. 390 (2012 MT) (justice/limits on judicial review of agency decisions)
Sowell v. Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 693 P.2d 1222 (Mont. 1984) (interpretation of retirement-benefit designations in MT)
In re Keepers, 691 P.2d 810 (Mont. 1984) (scope of enumerated versus implied terms in restraining orders)
Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 215 P.3d 675 (Mont. 2009) (ejusdem generis principle in statutory construction)