L. K. IRELAND, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
J. B. THOMAS ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the statute barring retirement benefits for officials with account shortages does not irrevocably forfeit benefits, but merely postpones entitlement until the shortage is corrected.
Appellants, state retirement plan officials, appealed a judgment granting former sheriff Thomas retirement benefits. A shortage existed in the sheriff…
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 Forfeiture Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellants, officials who are responsible for the proper administration of state retirement plans, appeal from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County in an action by appellee Thomas for declaratory and ancillary relief resolving the parties’ controversy over Thomas’ entitlement to retirement benefits for the period July 17, 1967 through October 1, 1973. The circuit court held that Thomas, formerly sheriff of Jefferson County, is entitled to the benefits and appellants insist that payment is barred by the provisions of § 122.08(7), F.S. 1973 (1974 Supp.):
“No state or county official or employee who has a shortage in his accounts, as certified by the auditor general, may retire or receive any benefits under this chapter so long as such shortage exists.”
The auditor general certified that a shortage existed in the former sheriff’s accounts on June 14, 1967, and a shortage existed until it was corrected by payment in September 1973. While the correction of the shortage resulted in Thomas receiving his pension benefits on and after Octo ber 1, 1973, the existence of the shortage prevented his receiving benefits from the date of his attempted qualification for retirement, July 17, 1967, until the date the shortage was corrected.
The trial court held that the quoted statute did not irrevocably forfeit the former sheriff’s retirement benefits accruing between July 1967 and October 1973, but merely postponed his entitlement to those benefits until the shortage was removed. We agree. The statute does not clearly require a forfeiture or irremediable penalty. None should be supplied by unnecessary implication. See Hotel and Rest. Comm’n v. Sunny Seas No. One, Inc., 104 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1958).
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Christian, 335 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…8, 194 So. 305 (1940). . In State v. Greene, 247 So. 2d 102 (3 Fla.App. 1971), the Third District Court of Appeal correctly observed: “This statute [838.06] is not the typical bribery statute . . . . See notes (1) and (2) supra. . Ireland v. Thomas, 324 So. 2d 146 (1 Fla.App. 1975); 37 C.J.S. Forfeitures § 4.b.…
-
Eaves v. Division OF Retirement, 704 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…Christian, 335 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)(“Statutes imposing forfeiture will be strictly construed in a manner such as to avoid the forfeiture and will be liberally construed so as to avoid and reheve from forfeiture.”); Ireland v. Thomas, 324 So. 2d 146, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)(where forfeiture of retirement benefits was not clearly required by statute, no forfeiture should be inferred). Since Mr. Eaves’ effort to direct benefits elsewhere came to naught, his widow should be treated just as if the…
Authorities Cited
- Hotel & Rest. Comm'n v. Sunny Seas NO. ONE, Inc., 104 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1958)