Duke
From the Illinois Municipal League
Sola v. Roselle Police Pension Board, 2012 IL App (2d) 100608 (January 6, 2012)
Illinois Appellate Courts
Sola v. Roselle Police Pension Board
Overview
Illinois Appellate Courts
Sola v. Roselle Police Pension Board
Overview
A surviving spouse of a deceased police officer was entitled to continue receiving a 3% annual increase in survivors' pension benefits, even though the Pension Code does not authorize the annual increases for surviving spouses of police officers, because the board failed to seek review of the agency's decision within 35 days, as required by the Administrative Review Law.
Summary
In 1993, the plaintiff began receiving pension benefits as the surviving spouse of a former village police officer, and the board granted her an annual 3% cost-of-living increase on those benefits. The village, however, attempted to discontinue the 3% increases in 2001. The plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the pension board did not have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing to review her pension benefits. According to the plaintiff, the pension board did not timely review its original pension decision under the Administrative Review Law, which limits the review of an administrative decision to a 35-day period after the decision is issued. The trial court granted the plaintiff's request and permanently enjoined the board from conducting a hearing to review the plaintiff's pension benefits. The appellate court affirmed.
In 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court held, in Roselle Police Pension Board v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d 546 (2009), that Article 3 of the Illinois Pension Code does not permit cost-of-living increases for survivors of police officers. After that ruling, the pension board notified the plaintiff that it was holding a hearing to determine whether the ruling in Roselle prohibited the pension board from awarding her cost-of-living increases. Ultimately, the board found that it had no jurisdiction to modify her pension benefits until ordered otherwise by the court. So, the board filed a complaint asking the court to order it to cease its practice of awarding cost-of-living increases. A week later, the village filed a motion to dissolve or vacate the permanent injunction enjoining the board from conducting a hearing to review the plaintiff's pension benefits pursuant to Roselle.
Both the pension board and the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the village's complaint, arguing that the village's claims were precluded on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. The village appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.
The appellate court determined that the trial court properly denied the village's motion to dissolve or vacate the permanent injunction enjoining the board from conducting a hearing to review the plaintiff's pension benefits because the village did not demonstrate a change in facts or law that would warrant a modification of the injunction. Even though the Supreme Court's ruling in Roselle would seem to have changed the law regarding pension benefits for the survivors of former police officers, it did not change the Administrative Review Law. The issue here is only that the board does not have jurisdiction to review its previous decision because it was beyond the 35-day statute of limitations.
The appellate court also determined that the board's decision was not a standard or statement of policy, which would make it fall outside the definition of an administrative decision, as the board's decision was not a systemic miscalculation.
The appellate court further determined that a recent change in the Pension Code did not allow the board to review its prior decision. The village argued that, because the Pension Code seems to require annual specific pension board action, the board is vested with jurisdiction annually to review whether it correctly awarded a cost-of-living adjustment. The appellate court determined, however, that the village's argument was flawed for two reasons: (1) No language in the relevant Section of the Pension Code permits a pension board to recalculate a benefit already awarded; and (2) there is nothing to indicate that the legislature intended to rewrite the review law to enlarge a pension board's jurisdiction.
Finally, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not err in dismissing the village's complaint. Here, as stated above, the issue is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to cost-of-living increases, but rather whether the board has jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Law to review the award. Since the board's decision was more than 35 days old (the board's proposed review was actually eight years after its decision), the board was without jurisdiction to hold a hearing to review that decision. And, the village was precluded from litigating its claim under either res judicata or collateral estoppel.
The end result is that the plaintiff is entitled to continue to receive the cost-of-living increases to her benefits that she is not statutorily authorized to receive.











