2013 IL App (1st) 120052
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Harry Faust was a Chicago fireman and Doris Faust was his widow who began receiving a widow’s annuity after his death in 1977.
- Doris remarried in 1979, which terminated the widow’s annuity at that time; in 1995 the statute was amended to reinstate remarried widows, retroactively allowing reinstatement.
- Doris was notified in 2005 by the Board of possible entitlement to a higher duty-related widow’s annuity but did not file an application or respond to the notice.
- Doris died in 2009; Pamela Reynolds, as special administrator of the estate, sued in 2010 on several theories seeking increased benefits for the estate and heirs.
- Circuit court dismissed, holding the widow’s rights abated upon death and could not be assigned or survived; this appeal followed.
- Court analyzed abatement, nonassignability, and survival under the Firemen’s Pension Fund and Illinois law, ultimately affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May administrator pursue posthumous benefits on behalf of heirs? | Reynolds argued estate could pursue Doris Faust’s potential increases. | Board argued benefits are nonassignable and do not survive death. | Abatement/nonassignability bar relief; no survival for heirs. |
| Are pension rights assignable to the estate or survivors? | Estate could assign and pursue anticipated increases for heirs. | Statutes prohibit assignment of any pension benefits or related rights. | Prohibition on assignment applies to all benefits and rights; no assignment. |
| Do civil-enforcement or review rights survive death for this claim? | Rights to pursue increased benefits survive for administration by the estate. | No survival mechanism under the governing statute; actions require living participant/beneficiary/fiduciary. | No survival; rights terminate upon death. |
| May a successor judge reconsider or overturn prior rulings on abatement/assignment? | Successor could not reverse implied rulings. | Court may review/modify interlocutory orders; successor can decide abatement/assignment issues. | Successor judge properly ruled on abatement and assignment issues; authority to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bertucci v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 351 Ill. App. 3d 368 (2004) (recognizes potential increase in widows benefits under Bertucci framework)
- Bell v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 398 Ill. App. 3d 758 (2010) (discusses procedures and administrative notice requirements under Bertucci)
- Thompson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 379 Ill. App. 3d 498 (2008) (contract-like rights; alive plaintiff stood to pursue benefits)
- Froehlich v. Matz, 93 Ill. App. 3d 398 (1981) (survival of actions; lack of survival provision otherwise)
- Northwest Diversified, Inc. v. Desai, 353 Ill. App. 3d 378 (2004) (assignment of judgments; general assignability principles)
- Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 125 Ill. 2d 203 (1988) (circuit court inherent power to modify/vacate interlocutory orders)
- Balciunas v. Duff, 94 Ill.2d 176 (1983) (interlocutory orders and final judgment; power to modify)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (policy concerns on testamentary transfer of survivor interests)
- Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054 (2012) (contextual support for interpreting circuit court authority)