Thomas Saccone v. Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (071841)
98 A.3d 1158
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Saccone, a retired Newark firefighter and PFRS member, seeks to designate survivors’ benefits for his SSI-eligible disabled son Anthony to be paid into a first-party special needs trust (SNT) under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(d)(4)(A).
- Anthony currently receives SSI and other public assistance; direct payment of Anthony’s share could jeopardize eligibility due to income/resources limits.
- The Division of Pension and Benefits denied changing the beneficiary designation to a trust for Anthony; the Board affirmed, concluding survivors’ benefits vest automatically to spouse/children and cannot be designated to a trust.
- Appellate Division affirmed the Board, holding New Jersey’s SNT statutes do not permit self-settled SNTs to be funded with the beneficiary’s benefits.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to determine whether a first-party (d)(4)(A) SNT may stand as the beneficiary in lieu of Anthony under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-12.1(a) and remanded for further action consistent with this opinion.
- Dissent would affirm the Appellate Division, maintaining the plain statutory text prohibits designating any beneficiary other than a spouse or child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a first-party SNT may receive the PFRS survivors’ benefits for a disabled child under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). | Saccone: SNT for Anthony aligns with remedial policy and public benefits. | Board: Survivors’ benefits vest to spouse/child and cannot be designated to a trust. | Yes; a first-party SNT may receive the survivors’ benefits for Anthony. |
| Whether the statutory language restricting beneficiaries to spouse/children can be reconciled with permitting a self-settled SNT for a disabled child. | Saccone: remedial construction and public policy support SNT use. | Board/Appellate Division: plain text prohibits such designation. | The statute should be interpreted remedially to allow a first-party SNT under § 1396p(d)(4)(A). |
| What is the proper approach to balancing statutory text with remedial policy in PFRS survivors’ benefits? | Saccone: policy favors SNTs to protect eligibility for public benefits. | Board: adhere to explicit beneficiary restrictions to preserve legislative scheme. | Remedial interpretation governs; deny rigid construction that would forfeit benefits. |
| Does the existence of Miller trusts or similar mechanisms affect the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-12.1(a)? | Saccone/Amici: Miller trusts exist federally; NJ recognizes SNTs; should be allowed. | Board/Appellate Division: Miller trusts not authorized by NJ statute. | Not controlling; NJ statutes authorize(d) (d)(4)(A) SNTs and permit their use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seire v. Police & Fire Pension Comm’n of Orange, 6 N.J. 586 (1951) (pension statutes are remedial and shield beneficiary interests)
- Eyers v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 91 N.J. 51 (1982) (public policy protects surviving spouses/children)
- LaSala v. LaSala, 335 N.J. Super. 1 (2000) (explanation of PFRS survivor benefits structure)
- J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305 (2013) (special needs trusts and public benefits integration)
- In re Van Orden, 383 N.J. Super. 410 (App.Div.2006) (remedial interpretation of pension statutes)
- Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581 (2012) (interpretive framework for statutory intent)
- State ex rel. K.O., 217 N.J. 83 (2014) (extrinsic aids in statutory construction)
- Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558 (2012) (absurd-result avoidance in statutory construction)