Hackford v. Utah State Retirement
2018 UT App 214
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Pete C. Hackford, a Tier 1 noncontributory URS member, retired May 1, 2011 at age 50 with ~25 years of service (includes purchased military credit) and took an early-age–reduced benefit.
- Hackford signed retirement forms acknowledging post-retirement employment restrictions and statutory provisions governing retirement alterations.
- The Division reemployed Hackford June 13, 2011 (within one year of retirement); URS cancelled his retirement allowance effective July 1, 2011 and reinstated him to active membership.
- URS told Hackford his original allowance would resume on a later retirement and that post-reemployment service would be calculated as a separate additional allowance.
- In 2014 Hackford sought benefit estimates for projected later retirement dates; URS confirmed the original allowance would resume (still subject to the early-age reduction) and any post‑retirement service would be a separately calculated allowance.
- Hackford appealed URS’s refusal to remove the early-age reduction; the Utah State Retirement Board granted summary judgment to URS and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hackford's Argument | Utah State Retirement Board/URS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah Code § 49-11-1204(5)(b) applies so the original cancelled allowance must be resumed and post‑reemployment service be calculated separately | § 49-11-1204(5)(b) should not apply; Hackford argued the subsection sequence required other subsections that he says don’t apply | URS/Board: reemployment within one year triggers cancellation and reinstatement under § 49-11-1204(2)–(4)(a), and a subsequent retirement ≥2 years after reinstatement triggers § 49-11-1204(5)(b) | Held: § 49-11-1204(5)(b) applies; original allowance resumes and a separate additional allowance is calculated for post‑reemployment service |
| Whether Hackford’s original benefit may be recalculated to remove the early-age reduction after reemployment and later retirement | Hackford: because his employment was effectively continuous (only a 45-day gap), the early-age reduction should be removed and benefits recalculated as a single continuous retirement | URS/Board: the statutory scheme treats the original allowance as vested; cancellation on reemployment and later reinstatement resume the original allowance (with its original terms, including early-age reduction); additional service is separately calculated | Held: The early-age reduction remains part of the resumed original allowance; the benefit is not recalculated to remove the reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod v. Retirement Board, 257 P.3d 1090 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles for URS benefits; liberal construction to provide maximum benefits consistent with fiduciary and actuarial principles)