Farmer v. Berry
981 N.E.2d 929
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- OPERS retirement benefits require a member, or a legally authorized agent, to complete, sign, and submit the retirement application.
- Donald Farmer did not personally complete, sign, or submit his OPERS retirement application; his attorney input data and submitted the form.
- Donald’s attorney lacked guardianship or written power of attorney at the time of submission.
- The application designated Berry as the beneficiary, and OPERS later voided the application and sought reimbursement of disbursed benefits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for OPERS and Berry appealed, challenging OPERS’s interpretation of who may file a retirement application.
- The parties stipulated the facts and Berry’s subpoenaed affidavit from Donald’s attorney was struck as part of the summary-judgment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who may file an OPERS retirement application | Berry argues attorney may file | Farmers/OPERS argue only member or attorney-in-fact or guardian | OPERS interpretation upheld; only member or attorney-in-fact may file |
| Is OPERS justified in voiding the application | Berry seeks validity of filing | OPERS acted within statute and rules | Court affirms summary judgment for OPERS; voided application consistent with law |
| Was the attorney’s affidavit properly struck | Affidavit admissible to prove authority | Affidavit irrelevant if no authority existed | Moot; even if admitted, application remained void under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Cosby v. Cosby, 96 Ohio St.3d 228 (Ohio 2002) (OPERS is limited by governing statutes; agency implied if authorized by statute)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment de novo review; no genuine issue of material fact)
- Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (Ohio 2004) (defers to agency interpretations if reasonable)
- State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 2009-Ohio-6321 (Ohio 2009) (deference to OPERS interpretation when reasonable)
- State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 2007-Ohio-3760 (Ohio 2007) (statutory construction as interrelated body of law)
- State ex rel. Keyes v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 2009-Ohio-4052 (Ohio 2009) (different statutory provisions construed together)
- Poliseno v. Mitchell, 2010-Ohio-2615 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishable; involved beneficiary designation, not retirement application)