Agnes Fagan v. James D. Cooney, Etc.

235 F.2d 725
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 1956
Docket11555
StatusPublished

This text of 235 F.2d 725 (Agnes Fagan v. James D. Cooney, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Agnes Fagan v. James D. Cooney, Etc., 235 F.2d 725 (7th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

After hearing this cause on stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary-judgment, the district judge found, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was entitled to receive $204.64 per month for 120 months commencing August 1, 1953 under “The Wilson Employees’ Retirement Plan” adopted January 1,1949. Plaintiff initiated this declaratory judgment proceeding for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation of that Plan which her deceased husband’s employer had set up for its employees.-

Frank P. Fagan, husband of the beneficiary plaintiff, was a member of the Plan and on December 1, 1952 he attained normal retirement age. Prior to that date he agreed, at the request of his employer, to defer his retirement for a period of one year from and after his normal retirement date, as demonstrated by his letter dated May 26, 1952 to The Wilson Employees’ Retirement Board. From the various communications, in evidence as exhibits, it appears that the Secretary of the Plan erroneously advised Mr. Fagan concerning benefits 1 under option two. Subsequently plaintiff’s husband filed his election of that option. While still actively employed by Wilson & Go., Inc., Mr. Fagan died July 27,1953. If he retired on his “Normal Retirement Date,” December 1,. 1952, Mr. Fagan’s (or his beneficiary’s) benefits under that option would have been 120 monthly payments at $204.64 per month. The Retire: ment Board, of which defendants are members, administering the Plan decided that Mr. Fagan’s death revoked his election of option two and consequently payments should be made to his widow on a no-option basis. Plaintiff rejected 'this basis and suit followed.

Two sections 2 in that Plan, which wé examined in detail, barred plaintiff’s recovery :

“Section 4, Benefits (1) Normal ' Retirement Allowance. '
“(a) Subject to the condition that no Member shall retire prior to January 1, 1950 except with the consent of the Retirement Board, a Member *727 shall be retired on a Normal Retirement Allowance upon reaching his Normal Retirement Date. Upon the request of the Company, however, a Member may defer his retirement and be continued in service; provided that during any such extension the Member shall be retired on a Normal Retirement Allowance on the first day of the calendar month next following receipt by the Retirement Board of written application therefor made by the Member or by the Company, and provided that if the Member should die during any such extension, payment shall be made as provided in Subsection (3) (b) of this Section 4 as if he had retired immediately prior to death.
“Section 4(4) Optional Forms of Retirement Allowances * * *
“If the Member or the beneficiary designated under the option dies prior to the Member’s retirement, the election shall thereby be revoked, and the election of an optional benefit may be revoked or changed by the Member only by written notice received by the Retirement Board prior to his retirement.”

Plaintiff’s estoppel argument is too tenuous for discussion here. Nor do we think counsels’ approving the order entered below amounted to a consent decree.

The judgment appealed is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendants.

Reversed and remanded.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I am constrained to dissent.

The retirement plan was established by the employer. Section 6 provides that it is to be administered by a retirement board appointed by the employer’s board of directors, to serve at the pleasure of the latter board. The plan also provides that the members of the retirement board .shall elect a secretary. It is agreed that Fagan wrote several letters to the retirement board, inquiring as to his rights under the plan, and, in reply, he received letters from the secretary, on behalf of that board.

A careful analysis of the plan, particularly subsections 4(1) (a), 4(3) (b) and 4(4) demonstrates that there are ambiguities in the language covering selection and revocation of options available to an employee pursuant to the plan. The plan is not clear as to the case of an employee who dies during a period of extended service and who, prior to his Normal Retirement Date, 1 had selected an option.

Subsection 4(1) (a) provides that “Upon the request of the Company [the em_ ployer] * * * a Member may defer his retirement and be continued in service,” and further “that if the Member should die during any such extension, payment shall be made as provided in Subsection 3(b) of this Section 4 as if he had retired immediately prior to death.” Subsection 3(b) provides

“If an optional benefit has not been elected and if the Member dies before 60 monthly installments of his Retirement Allowance have become payable, payments shall be continued to the beneficiary nominated by the Member by written designation filed with the Retirement Board if such beneficiary survives him, until a total of 60 monthly installments have been paid to him and the beneficiary. In the eve,nt °f ,?e fath vivor of the Member and the beneficiary before 60 monthly installments have become payable, the present value computed at Regular Interest of the remainder of the 60 monthly installments shall be paid ln one sum to the executors or administrators of such survivor.” (Emphasis supplied.)

There is here a lurking ambiguity since the wording of subsection 3(b) indicates that it is applicable to employees who *728 have not chosen an option and are already-receiving retirement allowance payments. Fagan, of course, had chosen an option and at the time of his death was not receiving any- payments.

Subsection 4(4) provides that “Any member may, by written notice received by the Retirement Board prior to his retirement, elect to convert the benefits otherwise payable on his account into an optional benefit * * (Emphasis supplied.) It is not clear whether the word “retirement” refers to his Normal Retirement Date or to the date of his actual retirement. 2 Fagan’s Normal Retirement Date was December 1, 1952.

Subsection 4(4) further states: “If a member or the beneficiary designated under the option dies prior to the Member’s retirement, the election shall thereby be revoked * * (Emphasis supplied.) The same problem arises. Hence, if the word “retirement” in that part of subsection 4(4) first above set forth, means Normal Retirement Date, it is logical that the same word in the next sentence also means the same date. That a confusing ambiguity exists in this respect is further evidenced by the retirement board’s letter of September 3, 1952 to Fagan in which the board said, in part:

“According to the provisions of the Plan, if you wish to elect an option other than the normal retirement allowance it is necessary for you to do so prior to December 1, 1952.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Toffenetti v. Mellor
153 N.E. 744 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1926)
Cedar Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Village of Calumet Park
75 N.E.2d 874 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1947)
Gillet v. . Bank of America
55 N.E. 292 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co.
126 N.E.2d 271 (New York Court of Appeals, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 F.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agnes-fagan-v-james-d-cooney-etc-ca7-1956.