In Re: Estate of J.F. Pancari, Sr., K.D. Gazda v. Scott Twp. Police Pension Fund
176 A.3d 404
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- John F. Pancari, Sr. (Decedent) died in 2013; Kathleen Gazda filed for survivor pension benefits from the Scott Township Police Pension Fund claiming to be his common‑law spouse.
- The Plan Administrator denied benefits for lack of documentary proof; Gazda appealed to the Board, which appointed a hearing officer and, on September 26, 2014, issued an adverse adjudication finding Gazda not entitled to benefits. Gazda did not appeal that adjudication.
- In November 2015 the Orphans’ Court issued a declaratory judgment that Gazda and Decedent were common‑law married (as of 1998); Revenue revised tax treatment accordingly.
- Gazda filed a second benefits application in March 2016 based on the Orphans’ Court decree; the Pension Fund denied it as barred by the Board’s earlier, unappealed adjudication. Gazda did not pursue the Plan’s appeal procedures a second time.
- Gazda moved in the Orphans’ Court to enforce its declaratory judgment against the Pension Fund; the Orphans’ Court denied relief, concluding Gazda failed to exhaust the Plan’s contractual administrative remedies and to timely appeal the Board’s adjudication under the Local Agency Law. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Orphans’ Court decree declaring a common‑law marriage is binding on the Pension Fund and compels payment of survivor benefits | Gazda: A court decree under §3306 conclusively establishes marriage and binds all persons; Pension Fund must honor the Orphans’ Court order without separate administrative review | Pension Fund: The dispute presented was entitlement to pension benefits under Act 600 and the Plan; Board adjudication on benefit eligibility became final when unappealed and binds parties; Plan requires administrative exhaustion | Held: Orphans’ Court decree did not override Plan/Local Agency Law final adjudication; because Gazda failed to timely appeal the Board’s adjudication and failed to exhaust mandatory Plan remedies, the denial of benefits was final and enforceable |
| Whether the Local Agency Law / Plan’s exhaustion requirements apply to questions of marital status when assessing eligibility for pension benefits | Gazda: Existence of marriage is within courts’ exclusive authority and not subject to administrative adjudication; third parties cannot relitigate a judicial decree | Pension Fund: Act 600 and the Plan authorize the Fund to determine beneficiary eligibility, including marital status, and the Plan preserves rights under the Local Agency Law; Plan expressly requires exhaustion and deems unappealed adjudications final | Held: The Plan expressly required exhaustion, and the Local Agency Law applies to the Board’s adjudication of benefit entitlement; failure to appeal divested the courts of jurisdiction to grant Gazda the relief she sought in this procedural posture |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Policemen’s Relief & Pension Fund of City of Pittsburgh, 871 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Orphans’ Court decree of common‑law marriage held binding on pension fund)
- Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 939 A.2d 843 (Pa.) (Supreme Court declined to read exhaustion requirement into benefit plan lacking mandatory language)
- Lundy v. City of Williamsport, 548 A.2d 1339 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (failure to timely appeal local agency adjudication divests trial court of jurisdiction)
- Cunningham v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 914 A.2d 966 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (party bound by 30‑day statutory time limit for local agency appeals)
- Cooney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Patterson UTI, Inc.), 94 A.3d 425 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (workers’ comp. adjudication can resolve common‑law marriage issue in benefit context)
- Vignola v. Vignola, 39 A.3d 390 (Pa. Super.) (prior adjudication on marital status can collaterally estop relitigation)