PAUL BROWN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPALITY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Paul Brown appealed a judgment denying him additional pension benefits and requiring reimbursement of overpaid amounts to the City and pension board. The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's decision but reversed on the issue of whether the reimbursement owed should be offset by Brown's pension contributions made after his resignation date.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that Brown was not entitled to additional pension benefits and that reimbursement was owed, but reversed the trial court's ruling that the reimbursement should not be offset by Brown's contributions made after April 23, 1991.
[1] A court may decide an issue not specifically pleaded in a complaint if that issue is presented by a counterclaim.
[2] A trial court's determination regarding entitlement to pension benefits will be affirmed if supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While Brown did not specifically plead offset, the Board in its counterclaim asked for a judgment in the amount of the excess pension benefits paid to Brown 'offset by any employee contributions made by or on behalf of Brown during that period.'”
Establishes that the offset issue was properly raised by the Board in its counterclaim even though not pled by Brown in his complaint
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Brown was employed by the City of Jacksonville Beach and participated in its employees' retirement system. The trial court determined Brown's res…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pension Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Paul Brown appeals and the City of Jacksonville Beach cross-appeals an amended final judgment and second amended final judgment . entered in Brown’s breach of contract action against the appellees, the City and the Board of Trustees of the City of Jacksonville Beach Employees’ -Retirement System (the Board), relating to his pension benefits due as a result of his employment by the City.
We affirm without comment the City’s cross-appeal seeking attorney’s fees. With one exception, we affirm all issues raised in Brown’s appeal. Specifically, we affirm the trial court’s determination that he was not entitled to additional pension benefits, that the City was entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $13,105.68 which it had overpaid Brown, and that the Board of Trustees of the City of Jacksonville Beach Employee’s Retirement System was entitled to reimbursement for the overpayment of pension benefits.
However, we reverse the trial court’s ruling that the reimbursement awarded to the Board should not be offset by contributions to the pension plan made by or on behalf of Brown after April 23, 1991, Brown’s date of resignation as determined by the trial court. While Brown did not specifically plead offset, the Board in its counterclaim asked for a judgment in the amount of the excess pension benefits paid to Brown “offset by any employee contributions made by or on behalf of Brown during that period.” See, e.g., Poland v. Phillips, 371 So. 2d 1053, 1055-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(issue not pled in complaint could be decided where it was presented by the cross-claim).
Determining the amount of the offset is merely a matter of mathematics and was not a disputed issue which required evidence at trial.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.