McLeod v. Retirement Board
2011 UT App 190
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McLeod, a public-safety employee, accrued about 20 years of service from 1976–1996 in Davis County and local police/sherriff roles, then retired and began working for Browning Arms.
- He returned to Davis County as chief deputy after Cox was elected sheriff, resulting in a two-year hiatus during which McLeod received roughly $50,000 in retirement benefits.
- In 1996, McLeod retired, began benefits, then returned to public employment; his retirement was terminated under Utah law, and he started a new period of service for benefit calculation purposes.
- In 2001, after clarification from URS, McLeod understood his retirement would not be a single continuous period but two distinct periods of service for benefit calculation.
- McLeod ultimately retired again in 2007, with URS computing benefits based on two periods (1979–1996 and 1999–2007) rather than a single 28-year period, which reduced his total benefit.
- McLeod challenged URS/Board decisions, arguing for one continuous period and challenging the Board’s statutory interpretation and any equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 49-1-505(3) requires separate retirements for discontinuous service. | McLeod contends the two stints should be treated as one continuous period. | Board/URS correctly treat as two retirements under § 49-1-505(3). | Two retirements must be used for calculation. |
| How final average salary is determined for pre- and post-original retirement periods. | McLeod argues the higher pre-retirement salary should apply to the entire period. | Statutes require using the final average salary data for each respective period. | Final average salary is calculated separately for each period; not cross-applied. |
| Whether URS is equitably estopped from treating the periods separately. | McLeod relied on URS telephone statements implying a single-period calculation. | No clear, well-substantiated representations; no estoppel established. | Equitable estoppel not proven; Board affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sindt v. Retirement Bd., 157 P.3d 797 (Utah Supreme Court 2007) (statutory interpretation and liberal construction principles in retirement acts)
- LPI Servs. v. McGee, 215 P.3d 135 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (liberal construction and statutory harmony considerations)
- Whitaker v. Utah State Retirement Bd., 191 P.3d 814 (Utah Court of Appeals 2008) (correction-of-error standard for statute interpretation)
- Eldredge v. Utah State Retirement Board, 795 P.2d 671 (Utah Court of Appeals 1990) (government estoppel exceptions and certitude in retirement representations)
- Celebrity Club, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Comm'n, 602 P.2d 689 (Utah Supreme Court 1979) (clear written government representations for estoppel)
- Anderson v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 839 P.2d 822 (Utah Supreme Court 1992) (no estoppel where government made no specific representations)
- Sutro & Co. v. Utah, 646 P.2d 715 (Utah Supreme Court 1982) (estoppel considerations in government context)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 122 P.3d 506 (Utah Supreme Court 2005) (issues of preservation of constitutional questions and remedies)