Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System v. Corrente
111 A.3d 301
R.I.2015Background
- Corrente, City of Providence employee in two periods: 1967–1987 and 1990–1999, with pensions based on salary and years of service.
- Convicted in 2002 on six felonies related to his second period of employment; sentenced to 56 months.
- Board suspended Corrente’s pension in 2002 and appointed an independent hearing officer to determine reduction.
- Board voted in 2008 to reduce the pension by revoking the second-period portion and to return contributions from that period.
- Board filed a miscellaneous petition under the Honorable Service Ordinance (HSO) to confirm its decision; mayor/intervenors obtained intervention and the matter was consolidated with related cases; trial court entered judgment in 2011 confirming the reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the board’s action | Corrente (plaintiff) not applicable; intervenors argue jurisdiction via equity/declaratory relief | Board/intervenors rely on HSO and new §36-10.1-5 to confer jurisdiction | Subject-matter jurisdiction initially lacking; remanded for jurisdictional determination under statute |
| Whether equity or declaratory-judgment jurisdiction applied | Board sought to confirm its decision, not traditional equitable relief | Equity/declaratory-judgment powers could justify review | Equity and declaratory-judgment jurisdiction did not properly apply to this HSO action |
| Whether § 36-10.1-5 retroactively or prospectively applies | Act applies to pending proceedings and could cure jurisdiction | Act retroactivity not explicit; judgment already entered | Statute applies to pending proceedings but not retroactively; remand with new jurisdiction under §36-10.1-5 |
| Whether a criminal conviction is required before board action under HSO | Ryan v. City of Providence requires conviction | HSO authorizes board action irrespective of conviction | Constitutional/precedent issue; not controlling for jurisdiction in this case; discussion acknowledged |
| What is the proper remedy given the jurisdictional issue | Remand to clarify/affirm relief | Proceed under new jurisdiction conferred by statute | Remand to Superior Court with instructions to proceed under §36-10.1-5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011) (criminal conviction prerequisite under HSO confirmed in Ryan)
- Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 437 A.2d 542 (R.I. 1981) (limits of municipal powers and court jurisdiction over certain actions)
- Higgins v. Tax Assessors of Pawtucket, 27 R.I. 401, 63 A. 34 (1905) (general limits on invoking equity jurisdiction)
- La Petite Auberge, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 419 A.2d 274 (R.I. 1980) (superior court as court of general equitable jurisdiction)
- Trice v. City of Cranston, 110 R.I. 724, 297 A.2d 649 (1972) (equitable relief in pension disputes historically pursued via equity)
- Beebe v. Fitzgerald, 106 R.I. 650, 262 A.2d 625 (1970) (pension-related challenges under equity principles)