60 Cal.App.5th 674
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Amira Manderson-Saleh’s mother (a long‑time UCSD nurse) initiated retirement in August–September 2016, executed a notarized power of attorney (Aug. 25, 2016), and died Sept. 20, 2016.
- The UC Regents’ Service Center emailed an unsigned Monthly Retirement Income Election Worksheet (Sept. 12–13); Manderson‑Saleh (as attorney‑in‑fact) faxed back the completed but unsigned worksheet on Sept. 13 naming herself contingent annuitant.
- The Service Center prepared a final UBEN 161 Election form (mailed Sept. 16) stating the election is not effective if received after the member’s death; that signed final form was not returned before Mother’s death.
- A signed UBEN 161 form, dated and signed Sept. 26 (after death) by Manderson‑Saleh, was received; the Regents denied the contingent‑annuitant claim because the required form was received after death and Powers of Attorney expire at death.
- Manderson‑Saleh sued: pleaded breach of contract (demurred by Regents) and filed a §1085 writ petition to overturn the Regents’ administrative denial; trial court sustained the demurrer without leave and denied the writ.
- Court of Appeal: affirmed sustaining demurrer on contract claim but reversed the writ denial, holding the Regents abused discretion by not applying the substantial‑compliance doctrine and directing issuance of a writ awarding the contingent annuity to Manderson‑Saleh.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extra‑record evidence in a §1085 challenge to a quasi‑judicial administrative decision | Manderson‑Saleh: extra‑record declarations and the Sept. 13 fax are admissible to show course of dealings and whether Regents considered all relevant facts | Regents: court should be limited to administrative record; extra evidence improper | Court: extra‑record evidence was admissible to explain context and course of conduct in informal/quasi‑judicial §1085 review (Western States rule) |
| Interpretation of Plan Regulation 12.03 (must Plan Administrator receive a signed UBEN 161 before death?) | Manderson‑Saleh: 12.03 is ambiguous; designation can be effective without the final signed UBEN 161 where the Service Center had actual knowledge via the Election Worksheet | Regents: 12.03 unambiguously requires receipt of the signed final election form before death | Court: Regents’ interpretation that a final signed election is required is reasonable and entitled to deference, but not dispositive given substantial‑compliance doctrine |
| Applicability of substantial‑compliance doctrine to pension beneficiary designations | Manderson‑Saleh: Mother manifested intent and took affirmative steps (faxed worksheet received by Regents before death) — substantial compliance should validate the designation | Regents: regulations have statutory force; strict compliance is required to ensure certainty and avoid double payments; approval by Plan Administrator is discretionary | Court: Substantial compliance applies; undisputed facts show clear intent and affirmative steps; Regents abused discretion by refusing to apply substantial compliance and cannot deny approval absent a valid reason |
| Proper procedural remedy (contract action vs. mandamus) | Manderson‑Saleh: may bring breach of contract claiming she is third‑party beneficiary of Mother’s pension | Regents: exclusive remedy is writ of mandamus to review administrative denial | Held: Demurrer correctly sustained — mandamus (§1085) is the proper vehicle; contract claim properly dismissed without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Watenpaugh v. State Teachers' Retirement, 51 Cal.2d 675 (Cal. 1959) (establishes substantial‑compliance rule for pension beneficiary designations)
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995) (extra‑record evidence generally admissible in §1085 challenges to informal/quasi‑judicial actions for background and to show whether agency considered relevant factors)
- Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.2d 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (applied substantial‑compliance where member manifested intent and steps were taken though required form was not received)
- Coughlin v. Board of Administration, 152 Cal.App.3d 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (applied Watenpaugh to give effect to clear intent despite statutory revocation rule)
- Bunnett v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.App.4th 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (mandamus is the proper remedy to challenge Regents’ pension decisions)
- Betts v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System, 21 Cal.3d 859 (Cal. 1978) (public‑employee pension can constitute vested contractual right)
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28 (Cal. 1974) (mandamus appropriate to challenge denial of pension benefits)