CARRIE THORNLEY v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE RIVER FOREST POLICE PENSION FUND аnd THE VILLAGE OF RIVER FOREST
No. 1-21-0835
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT SIXTH DIVISION
March 31, 2022
2022 IL App (1st) 210835
No. 2020 CH 02676
The Honorable Alice Conlon, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE SHARON ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Harris and Mikva concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 In the case at bar, defendant Board of Trustees of the River Forest Police Pension Fund (the Board) found that plaintiff Carrie Thornley, an officer‘s surviving spouse, was entitled to survivor bеnefits. The Board found that she was entitled to benefits, effective December 12, 2032, when her husband would have turned 60 years old and would have been entitled to collect, had he lived. Starting on December 12, 2032, plaintiff will receive 42.5% of her deceased husband‘s applicable pension salary, which is the same benefit that he would have received.
¶ 2 Plaintiff appealed the Board‘s decision to the circuit court arguing that she was entitled to payment of the benefit starting immediately. However, the circuit court affirmed the Board. Plaintiff now appeals the Board‘s decision to this court. For the reasons discussed below, we also affirm the Board‘s decision.
BACKGROUND
¶ 3 The important facts of this case are undisputed, so we summarize them below.
¶ 4 Michael Thornley, plaintiff‘s husband, was born on December 12, 1972. If he had lived, he would have turned 60 on Deсember 12, 2032. He began working for the River Forest Police Department in 1997. He married plaintiff on October 23, 2004, and was married to her until his death. Plaintiff‘s husband resigned from the police department on November 11, 2015, and died on January 30, 2018. After her husband‘s death, plaintiff filed an application for surviving sрouse benefits with the Board on February 7, 2018.
¶ 5 It is undisputed by the parties on this appeal that, at the time of his death, he was a “deferred pensioner,” in that he was “a police officer who has retired having accumulated enough creditable service to qualify for a pension, but who has not attained the required age.”
¶ 6 On March 20, 2018, the Board sent an email seeking advice from the Illinois Department of Insurance (DOI), Public
¶ 7 The Village of River Forest filed a motion to intervene in the matter which the Board granted. Plaintiff had objected to the Village‘s motion to intervene on the ground that most of what the Village asserted was irrelevant to the issue of her survivor‘s benefit; and the Board‘s subsequent decision did not even mention the Village‘s motion to intervene. On this appeal, the Village adopts and joins all the arguments raised by the Board in its appellate brief regarding the survivor benefit, and it writes separately only to argue that the Board did not abuse its discretion by permitting it to intervene. Since the Village‘s intervention is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely, the start date of plaintiff‘s benefit payments, we find that the issue of whether the Board did, or did not, abuse its discretion by granting the Village‘s motion is mоot.1 GlidePath Development LLC v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 2019 IL App (1st) 180893, ¶ 27 (“As a general rule, courts of review in Illinois do not *** consider issues where the result will not be affected regardless of how those issues are decided.“)
¶ 8 On April 25, 2019, the Board held a hearing where it heard arguments. On January 23, 2020, the Board issued a written decision and order finding that plaintiff was entitlеd to the survivor benefits as described above (supra ¶ 1). However, it rejected the AGC‘s opinion regarding the payment start date, because it would “produce[] an absurd result of advancing the date of benefit eligibility.” Instead, the Board concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to collеct survivor‘s payments until December 12, 2032.
¶ 9 On June 22, 2021, the circuit court of Cook County affirmed the Board‘s decision and order. On July 16, 2021, plaintiff filed the within timely notice of appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶ 10 The only issue on this appeal is the payment start date of plaintiff‘s survivor‘s benefit. Both sides agree that plaintiff is еntitled to a survivor‘s benefit; and they also agree on exactly how much she will receive.
¶ 11 The parties are also in substantial agreement on the law that we must apply. Both sides agree, as the law requires, that when reviewing a pension board‘s decision, the appellаte court reviews solely the decision of the Board. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497, 531 (2006) (“our review is focused solely upon the decision of the [Pension] Board“).
¶ 12 “Rulings on questions of fact will be reversed only if against the manifest weight
¶ 13 In the case at bar, both sides argue that they each win under the plain language of the statute. Thus, we are presented by the parties with a straight question of statutory interpretation, to which we apply de novo review. “Under a de novo standard of review, the reviewing court owes no deference” to “the judgment or reasoning” in the decision below. People v. Jackson, 2021 IL App (1st) 190263, ¶ 38. “In addition, a reviewing panel, such as ourselves, may affirm on any basis found in the reсord.” Id.
¶ 14 The Board has the statutory authority to calculate and award pensions to retirees.
¶ 15 Section 3-112 of the Illinois Pension Code provides pension benefits to survivors of police officers who served in municipalities of 500,000 people or less, such as the municipality at issue here.
“Upon the death of a police officer entitled to a pension under Section 3-111, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to the pension to which the police officer was then entitled.”
40 ILCS 5/3-112(a) (West 2018) .
Both sides agree that this sentence govеrns the outcome of their dispute, and both argue that they win under its “plain language.”
¶ 16 The rules of statutory interpretation are well established and undisputed here. With statutory interpretation, a court‘s primary goal is to ascertain the legislators’ intent, and the best indication of their intent is the plain and ordinary meaning of the words they chose to use. Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175, ¶ 40. To ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of a word, a reviewing court may use a dictionary. Soucek v. Breath of Life Professional Services, NFP, 2021 IL App (1st) 210413, ¶ 54. When interpreting statutes, this court has frequently relied on definitions from Dictionary.com. Soucek, 2021 IL App (1st) 210413, ¶ 54; Sekura, 2018 IL App (1st) 180175, ¶ 53; Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 210279, ¶¶ 57-59. If the statutory language is plain аnd unambiguous, as we have here, we look no further. Sekura, 2018 IL App (1st) 180175, ¶ 44. When construing a statute, we strive to give every word its reasonable meaning and to avoid rendering any word superfluous or void. Sekura, 2018 IL App (1st) 180175, ¶ 43.
¶ 17 Pursuant to the above-quoted sentence, plaintiff argues that “[u]pon the
¶ 18 The problem with this argument, however, is that the clause is not simply “upоn the death.” The triggering event is not “the death,” but “the death of a police officer entitled to a pension“; and no one disputes that, at the moment of his death, he was not entitled to receive any pension money at all.
¶ 19 The Board has agreed that, upоn the death, she is entitled to the pension money that the officer was “then” entitled to.
¶ 20 Her response is that the word “then” refers back to the pension rights that he had at the moment when he died, instead of to the moment when he could start collecting. Of course, the moment that she concedes that the sentence refers to pension rights, instead of immediate pension money, her argument is lost. Then, “upon the death,” she gets his rights—whatever they are at that time—which is exactly what the Board found.
¶ 21 When we interpret a code, we must interpret it as a whole. McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511, ¶ 17. Since plaintiff‘s husband resigned early, he was a “deferred” pensioner, meaning that thе ability to collect money on this pension was deferred.
¶ 22 Plaintiff further argues that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the AGC‘s opinion, and that this court must accord his opinion substantial deference.4 In support, plaintiff cites the Illinois
¶ 23 The issue in the Roselle case was whether the surviving spouse of a deceased disabled police officer was entitled to receive annual increases for his disability pension which the spouse had started receiving upon the officer‘s death. Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d at 548-49. First, the Roselle court noted, as we did above, that it was called upon to interpret a statute, and that statutory construction entails de novo review. Id. at 552. After first completing its own de novo review, the supreme court concluded that the statute before it was “silent on the question of whether the annual inсreases continue to accrue once the officer dies.” Id. at 554. The court found that it would not read into the statute what was not there and, thus, no such annual increases were authorized. Id. at 556.
¶ 24 After seven pages of its own analysis, the supreme court observed, in two paragrаphs at the end, that its conclusion was “further supported” by an Advisory Services Update issued by DOI. Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d at 559. The court stated that, when the legislature delegates the authority to define a statutory provision to an administrative body, “administrative interpretations of such statutory provisions should be given substantial weight, unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d at 559.
¶ 25 In the case at bar, the AGC found:
“The only guidance fully applicable to this present case stems from Section 3-112(a) which states, ‘[u]pon the death of a police officer entitled to a pension under Seсtion 3-111, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to the pension to which the police officer was then entitled. Taken at its plain meaning, this section of the Code entitles a surviving spouse to the benefits of his/her deceased partner immediately ‘upon the death of the [sic] pоlice officer.’ ”5
¶ 26 The AGC reads the initial clause as though it stated only “upon the death of a police officer,” and, as we already discussed above, this is manifestly contrary to the statute, which states: “[u]pon the death of a police officer entitled to a pension under Section 3-111.”
¶ 27 If the AGC was simply doing a “plain” reading of the statute, as he stated he was doing, then we also have the expertise and аuthority to plainly read the statute. ” ‘[A]n interpretation placed upon a statute by an administrative official cannot alter its plain language.’ ” Apple Canyon Lake Property Owners’ Association v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 2013 IL App (3d) 100832, ¶ 21 (quoting Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 32 Ill. App. 3d 166, 174 (1975)). For the reasons already described, we do not find his plain reading persuasive.
CONCLUSION
¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Board.
¶ 30 Affirmed.