KELLEY, Judge.
Louise Hutchinson (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Pennsylvania State Employes’ Retirement Board (SERB) granting in part her request for interest on the death benefit payable from her husband’s retirement account, but denying her request for attorney’s fees. We affirm.
The Honorable William D. Hutchinson became a member of the State Employes’ Retirement System (SERS) on December 1, 1972 by virtue of his election to the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Effective January 4, 1982, Representative Hutchinson became an employee of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) by virtue of his election to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On October 17,1987, Mr. Justice Hutchinson terminated his service with the AOPC when he was appointed as Judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On November 12, 1987, Judge Hutchinson completed a SERS Nomination of Beneficiaries form naming Claimant, his wife, as his principal beneficiary. On November 23, 1987, Judge Hutchinson completed an Application for Retirement Allowance, electing to withdraw his accumulated deductions in a lump sum and to receive a monthly annuity. On October 8, 1995, Judge Hutchinson died.
On October 31, 1995, Claimant contacted SERS to inquire regarding the death benefit that was payable to her due to her status as Judge Hutchinson’s principal beneficiary. An employee in the SERS Benefits Administration Division informed Claimant that the payment of the death benefit would be delayed due to problems with the SERS computer system.1
[9]*9By letter dated November 7, 1995, SERS acknowledged Judge Hutchinson’s death and requested that Claimant provide SERS with certain information so that it could begin processing the death benefit payable from her husband’s retirement account. However, SERS continued to experience problems with its computer system and was unable to proceed further toward the payment of benefits to Claimant. On November 17, 1995, SERS received the requested information from Claimant.
Under normal circumstances, SERS would have mailed Claimant an Act 500 letter informing her of her payment options within three weeks. However, SERS did not mail Claimant the Act 500 letter until February 6,1996 because of the computer problems. In that letter, SERS informed Claimant that she was entitled to a total death benefit of $644,976.57 and requested that she select a payment plan. The letter also required her to sign a release which conditioned the payment of her benefit on her release of all future claims against SERS.
On May 10, 1996, Claimant, through her attorney, requested payment of the death benefit including the interest that had accrued during SERS’ delay in making payment. Claimant’s attorney noted that she refused to sign that portion of the release that conditioned the payment of the death benefit on the relinquishment of her right to interest.
On May 13, 1996, SERS received the completed death benefit information from Claimant. Claimant elected to receive a single, lump sum payment of the death benefit. She also submitted the release; however, she modified the release to exclude release of her claim for interest on the death benefit. On May 31, 1996, SERS mailed the death benefit payment to Claimant in the amount of $644,976.57, which included no interest.
On December 2,1996, Claimant, through her attorney, sent a letter to SERS seeking the payment of legal interest2 on the death benefit for the period of delay by SERS in processing her claim. By letter dated January 10, 1997, SERS denied her request for legal interest. On January 31, 1997, Claimant filed an appeal of SERS’ refusal to pay interest with the SERS Appeals Committee. On April 11, 1997, the Appeals Committee again denied Claimant’s request for legal interest on the death benefits. By letter dated May 6, 1997, Claimant appealed this decision to SERB.
Pursuant to the regulations regarding the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure, 1 Pa.Code § 35.1553, SERS and Claimant agreed to submit the appeal to SERB on stipulated facts and exhibits. On September 16, 1997, the parties submitted the stipulated facts and exhibits to a hearing examiner.
On February 12,1998, following the submission of briefs by the parties, the hearing examiner issued an opinion with a recommendation regarding the disposition of the appeal. In the opinion the hearing examiner found that there was a delay of 81 days, from November 17, 1995 to February 6, 1996, in the mailing of the Act 500 [10]*10letter to Claimant due to SERS’ computer problems. Once Claimant responded to the Act 500 letter and supplied the necessary information concerning her selection of a payment plan, SERS took an additional 18 days, from May 13, 1996 to May 31, 1996, to mail the death benefit to Claimant. Thus, the hearing examiner determined that it took SERS 99 days to process the payment of Claimant’s death benefits.4
The hearing examiner noted that neither the State Employees’ Retirement Code (Retirement Code)5 nor the associated regulations6 imposes a time limit under which SERS must pay death benefits to the beneficiary of an annuitant in the retirement system. The hearing examiner determined that because no specific time limit could be found, the law would impose a requirement that SERS make payment within a reasonable amount of time. The hearing examiner noted that, pursuant to section 5905(g) of the Retirement Code7, SERS is required to pay the first death benefit to the beneficiary of an active member within 60 days of receipt of certification of his death and other necessary data. Although the instant case did not involve the death of an active member, as that term is defined in the Retirement Code, the hearing examiner determined that it would be reasonable to impose the same duty on SERS to make the first payment of death benefits to beneficiaries of non-active members within 60 days of receipt of certification of death and other necessary data.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing examiner reduced the 99-day delay attributable to SERS by the 60 days provided for in the Retirement Code. As a result, the hearing examiner recommended that Claimant be awarded interest at the legal rate for the 39-day delay attributable to SERS, and that Claimant’s request for attorney’s fees be denied.
Both Claimant and SERS filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendations with SERB. On October 20, 1998, SERB issued an order and opinion accepting and adopting the opinion and recommendation of the hearing examiner.8 Claimant then filed the instant appeal in this Court.
In this appeal, Claimant contends: (1) SERB erred in affirming the award of interest at the legal rate for a period of 39 days rather than for a period of 235 days; and (2) SERB erred in failing to award her attorney’s fees pursuant to the Act of December 13, 1982, P.L. 1127, as amended, 71 P.S. §§ 2031-2035 (Costs Act).
We initially note that our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Roche v. State Employes’ Retirement Board,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KELLEY, Judge.
Louise Hutchinson (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Pennsylvania State Employes’ Retirement Board (SERB) granting in part her request for interest on the death benefit payable from her husband’s retirement account, but denying her request for attorney’s fees. We affirm.
The Honorable William D. Hutchinson became a member of the State Employes’ Retirement System (SERS) on December 1, 1972 by virtue of his election to the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Effective January 4, 1982, Representative Hutchinson became an employee of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) by virtue of his election to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On October 17,1987, Mr. Justice Hutchinson terminated his service with the AOPC when he was appointed as Judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On November 12, 1987, Judge Hutchinson completed a SERS Nomination of Beneficiaries form naming Claimant, his wife, as his principal beneficiary. On November 23, 1987, Judge Hutchinson completed an Application for Retirement Allowance, electing to withdraw his accumulated deductions in a lump sum and to receive a monthly annuity. On October 8, 1995, Judge Hutchinson died.
On October 31, 1995, Claimant contacted SERS to inquire regarding the death benefit that was payable to her due to her status as Judge Hutchinson’s principal beneficiary. An employee in the SERS Benefits Administration Division informed Claimant that the payment of the death benefit would be delayed due to problems with the SERS computer system.1
[9]*9By letter dated November 7, 1995, SERS acknowledged Judge Hutchinson’s death and requested that Claimant provide SERS with certain information so that it could begin processing the death benefit payable from her husband’s retirement account. However, SERS continued to experience problems with its computer system and was unable to proceed further toward the payment of benefits to Claimant. On November 17, 1995, SERS received the requested information from Claimant.
Under normal circumstances, SERS would have mailed Claimant an Act 500 letter informing her of her payment options within three weeks. However, SERS did not mail Claimant the Act 500 letter until February 6,1996 because of the computer problems. In that letter, SERS informed Claimant that she was entitled to a total death benefit of $644,976.57 and requested that she select a payment plan. The letter also required her to sign a release which conditioned the payment of her benefit on her release of all future claims against SERS.
On May 10, 1996, Claimant, through her attorney, requested payment of the death benefit including the interest that had accrued during SERS’ delay in making payment. Claimant’s attorney noted that she refused to sign that portion of the release that conditioned the payment of the death benefit on the relinquishment of her right to interest.
On May 13, 1996, SERS received the completed death benefit information from Claimant. Claimant elected to receive a single, lump sum payment of the death benefit. She also submitted the release; however, she modified the release to exclude release of her claim for interest on the death benefit. On May 31, 1996, SERS mailed the death benefit payment to Claimant in the amount of $644,976.57, which included no interest.
On December 2,1996, Claimant, through her attorney, sent a letter to SERS seeking the payment of legal interest2 on the death benefit for the period of delay by SERS in processing her claim. By letter dated January 10, 1997, SERS denied her request for legal interest. On January 31, 1997, Claimant filed an appeal of SERS’ refusal to pay interest with the SERS Appeals Committee. On April 11, 1997, the Appeals Committee again denied Claimant’s request for legal interest on the death benefits. By letter dated May 6, 1997, Claimant appealed this decision to SERB.
Pursuant to the regulations regarding the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure, 1 Pa.Code § 35.1553, SERS and Claimant agreed to submit the appeal to SERB on stipulated facts and exhibits. On September 16, 1997, the parties submitted the stipulated facts and exhibits to a hearing examiner.
On February 12,1998, following the submission of briefs by the parties, the hearing examiner issued an opinion with a recommendation regarding the disposition of the appeal. In the opinion the hearing examiner found that there was a delay of 81 days, from November 17, 1995 to February 6, 1996, in the mailing of the Act 500 [10]*10letter to Claimant due to SERS’ computer problems. Once Claimant responded to the Act 500 letter and supplied the necessary information concerning her selection of a payment plan, SERS took an additional 18 days, from May 13, 1996 to May 31, 1996, to mail the death benefit to Claimant. Thus, the hearing examiner determined that it took SERS 99 days to process the payment of Claimant’s death benefits.4
The hearing examiner noted that neither the State Employees’ Retirement Code (Retirement Code)5 nor the associated regulations6 imposes a time limit under which SERS must pay death benefits to the beneficiary of an annuitant in the retirement system. The hearing examiner determined that because no specific time limit could be found, the law would impose a requirement that SERS make payment within a reasonable amount of time. The hearing examiner noted that, pursuant to section 5905(g) of the Retirement Code7, SERS is required to pay the first death benefit to the beneficiary of an active member within 60 days of receipt of certification of his death and other necessary data. Although the instant case did not involve the death of an active member, as that term is defined in the Retirement Code, the hearing examiner determined that it would be reasonable to impose the same duty on SERS to make the first payment of death benefits to beneficiaries of non-active members within 60 days of receipt of certification of death and other necessary data.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing examiner reduced the 99-day delay attributable to SERS by the 60 days provided for in the Retirement Code. As a result, the hearing examiner recommended that Claimant be awarded interest at the legal rate for the 39-day delay attributable to SERS, and that Claimant’s request for attorney’s fees be denied.
Both Claimant and SERS filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendations with SERB. On October 20, 1998, SERB issued an order and opinion accepting and adopting the opinion and recommendation of the hearing examiner.8 Claimant then filed the instant appeal in this Court.
In this appeal, Claimant contends: (1) SERB erred in affirming the award of interest at the legal rate for a period of 39 days rather than for a period of 235 days; and (2) SERB erred in failing to award her attorney’s fees pursuant to the Act of December 13, 1982, P.L. 1127, as amended, 71 P.S. §§ 2031-2035 (Costs Act).
We initially note that our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Roche v. State Employes’ Retirement Board, 731 A.2d 640 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999).
Claimant first asserts that SERB erred in affirming the award of interest at the [11]*11legal rate for a period of 39 days rather than for a period of 235 days, the period of time from her husband’s death on October 8,1995 to when SERS made the lump sum payment of death benefits on May 31, 1996. In support of this claim, Claimant relies on our opinion in Braig v. Pennsylvania State Employes’ Retirement Board, 682 A.2d 881 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). In particular, Claimant contends that Braig supports the proposition that interest accrued from the date of Judge Hutchinson’s death because that is the date on which the death benefits became due and payable. However, we disagree that such a conclusion is compelled by our opinion in Braig.
In Braig, SERS withheld the retirement benefits owed to judges who had resigned or had been removed from the bench. In that case, each of the judges had submitted to SERS an Application for Retirement Allowance, thereby electing the manner in which the accrued retirement benefits should be disbursed by SERS. Id., 682 A.2d at 882, 883, 884. Thus, at the time SERS withheld payment of these benefits, the judges had notified SERS of their intention to receive their accrued retirement benefits as vested members of SERS, and the judges indicated their preference as to the method by which these accrued benefits were to be disbursed. Id.
After SERB ultimately disbursed the accrued allowances, the judges requested that they be awarded legal interest from the time of filing for their retirement allowances until the time that these allowances were ultimately disbursed by SERB. Id. at 885. When SERB reversed a hearing examiner’s determination that the judges were entitled to such interest, the judges appealed SERB’S determination in this Court. Id.
On appeal, this Court initially considered whether SERB was under either a statutory or contractual obligation to pay the Claimants interest on the retirement allowances that had been withheld by SERB. Id. In this regard, we noted that the statutory terms of the Retirement Code are deemed to be contractually binding on the Commonwealth. Id. at 886 citing Cianfrani v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 505 Pa. 294, 479 A.2d 468 (1984).9 However, we also noted that there is no indication from the provisions of the Retirement Code that SERB “ ‘[i]s to be hable for interest except ... as a benefit of successful management and investment of the fund portfolio during the period before retirement wiien the employee is accumulating a stake in the fund.’ ” Id. quoting Cianfrani, 505 Pa. at 302, 479 A.2d at 472. In fact, we noted that section 5102 of the Retirement Code10 terminates [12]*12SERB’s obligation to credit interest to a vested member upon the effective date of the member’s retirement. Id. citing Cian-frani. Because the Claimants’ claim for interest on withheld benefits related to a period commencing after their respective dates of retirement, we concluded that “[p]ursuant to [Cianfrani ], therefore, the period during which SERB withheld payment of Claimants’ retirement benefits is expressly beyond the Commonwealth’s statutory and contractual duty, under the Retirement Code, to pay interest.” Id.
We then examined whether the judges were entitled to interest on the withheld funds under the Pennsylvania common law. In making this determination we noted that:
It is well-recognized under Pennsylvania common law that interest is as much a part of substantive debt as principal. As such, it is impliedly payable as compensation to a creditor for delay of payment by the debtor whenever a liquidated, or fixed, sum of money is unjustly withheld. In other words, interest is a form of damages allowed; in the absence of any express contract, when payment is withheld after it has become the duty of the debtor to discharge the debt.
Under this definition, there are two prerequisites to the running of interest: the debt must have been liquidated with some degree of certainty, and the duty to pay it must have become fixed. Once these prerequisites are met, any failure by the debtor to timely discharge the principal of the debt at the time fixed for payment will be considered a wrongful withholding of the sum due, warranting an award of interest at the legal rate from the date the money was due and payable. Where one of these prerequisites has not been met, however, any delay in discharging the debt cannot be considered wrongful for purposes of imposing interest.
Id. at 886-887 (citations and footnote omitted).11
[13]*13In examining whether the two prerequisites were present in Bmig, we noted, relative to the first of the two, that there was no question that the debt owing to each of the judges was liquidated with some degree of certainty at the time of their retirement. Id. at 887. Regarding the second of the prerequisites, we likewise noted that, at the time the payments were withheld by SERB, “[tjhere was a statute in existence, i.e. the Retirement Code, which affirmatively required SERB to grant Claimants’ retirement and pension benefits.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Because the debt owed to the Claimants-was liquidated with a degree of certainty at the time SERB withheld the retirement benefits, and because the Claimants were entitled to receive these benefits under the provisions of the Retirement Code, we properly concluded that:
[T]he right to the principal amount of SERB’S debt, and, therefore, an enforceable duty to pay such amount, existed upon the effective date of each Claimant’s retirement as a vested member of SERS. Thus, ... interest is due here under the usual contract rule because SERB withheld payment of the principal amount after it had become payable. [Bjecause Claimants’ retirement and pension benefits constitute both liquidated and enforceable debts, ... we believe that SERB’S failure to pay those debts when they became due may properly be characterized as a wrongful 'withholding of Claimants’ benefits. Accordingly, Claimants’ petition for interest presents a cognizable claim under the common law, which imposes a duty upon SERB here to pay interest as damages for delay in discharging its debt.
Id. at889.12’13
Thus, pursuant to Cianfrani, Bmig, and the explicit provisions of section 5102 of the Retirement Code, SERB was not under either a statutory or contractual duty to pay interest on the death benefits due to Claimant in this case. As a result, pursuant to Bmig, we must examine whether SERB is under an independent obligation, by virtue of the common law, to pay Claimant legal interest on the withholding of her death benefits. In this regard, we must determine whether the two prerequisites to the running of legal interest are present in this case, i.e., [14]*14whether the debt owed Claimant was liquidated with some degree of certainty, and whether SERB withheld payment after its duty to pay the debt had become fixed.
As in Braig, in this case it is undisputed that the debt owing to Claimant was liquidated with some degree of certainty at the time of Judge Hutchinson’s death. Indeed, it is conceded that the calculation of benefits is based upon the date of Judge Hutchinson’s death. Therefore, we must now determine at what time SERB’S duty to pay the death benefits to Claimant became fixed under the terms of the contract, i.e., the Retirement Code.14
Section 5905(g) of the Retirement Code states, in pertinent part:
(g) Death benefits. — Upon receipt of notification from the head of department of the death of an active member[15 ,16] or a member on leave without pay, the board shall advise the designated beneficiary[17] of the benefits to which he is entitled, and shall make the first payment to the beneficiary within 60 days of receipt of certification of death and other necessary data ...
71 Pa.C.S. § 5905(g).18 Thus, under the terms of the contract, the head of depart[15]*15ment is required to notify SERB of the death of an active member, and SERB’S duty to pay death benefits to the designated beneficiary of an active member becomes fixed after the notification of death, and within 60 days of its receipt of certification of the member’s death and other necessary data. Id.19
However, in this case Judge Hutchinson was not an active member at the time of his death. When Judge Hutchinson terminated his service with AOPC effective October 19, 1987, by virtue of his appointment to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, he made an election to receive his retirement benefits pursuant to the provisions of section 5705(a) of the Retirement Code.20 Thus, as noted by the parties in this case, the provisions of section 5905(g) do not apply as Judge Hutchinson was an [16]*16annuitant21 at the time of his death. In addition, as also noted by the parties, the Retirement Code does not specify the time within which SERB is required to pay death benefits to an annuitant beneficiary such as Claimant.
As the Pennsylvania Superior Court has noted, “[i]t is hornbook law that where no time is specified for performance of a contractual obligation, the courts will require that the obligation be performed within a ‘reasonable’ time.” Hodges v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, 449 Pa.Super. 341, 673 A.2d 973, 974 (1996). See Field v. Golden Triangle Broadcasting, Inc., 451 Pa. 410, 305 A.2d 689 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1158, 94 S.Ct. 916, 39 L.Ed.2d 110 (1974) (Where no time for performance was provided in the letter agreement of sale of a radio station, the law implied that it shall be done within a reasonable time, depending upon the nature of the business.); Lefkowitz v. Hummel Furniture Company, 385 Pa. 244, 122 A.2d 802 (1956) (Where no time for the preparation and submission of plans was provided in a construction contract, the law implied that it shall be done within a reasonable time.); L.C.S. Colliery, Inc. v. Globe Coal Co., 369 Pa. 1, 84 A.2d 776 (1951) (Where the time for a lessor to convey leased premises to a lessee was not specified in the lease agreement, a reasonable time was implied.); Marshall Construction Company, Inc. v. Forsyth, 359 Pa. 8, 57 A.2d 902 (1948) (Where the time for settlement was not provided in a contract for the sale of realty, a reasonable time was implied.)22
Because the Retirement Code is silent as to when SERB’S duty to make payment of death benefits to Claimant arose, it is appropriate for this court to supply that omitted term to the contract. Field; Lefkowitz; L.C.S. Colliery, Inc.; Marshall Construction Company, Inc.; Hodges; Skehan; Restatement (Seoond) of CONTRACTS § 204. Even though death [17]*17benefits are calculated from the date of death, Claimant’s assertion that SERB’s duty to disburse death benefits to her arose on the date of the annuitant’s death is an inappropriate and unreasonable construction of its express or implied terms. As with the provisions of section 5905(g) relating to the payment of death benefits to the beneficiary of an active member, a reasonable construction of the Retirement Code requires that SERB receive notification of the annuitant’s death and documentation demonstrating the annuitant beneficiary’s entitlement to benefits before its duty to disburse the funds arises. Likewise, as with the provisions of section 5905(g), a reasonable construction of the Retirement Code requires this Court to supply the omitted term that SERB discharge its statutory and contractual duty to disburse these death benefits within a reasonable time. Field; Lefkowitz; L.C.S. Colliery, Inc.; Marshall Construction Company, Inc.; Hodges; Skehan; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 204.23
In addition, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to award legal interest to Claimant for the entire period of time from the date of Judge Hutchinson’s death to the date payment of death benefits were disbursed by SERB. It cannot be said that SERB wrongfully withheld the benefits due Claimant when its duty to pay the benefits either did not yet arise or was to be performed within a reasonable period of time. See, e.g., Cianfrani, 505 Pa. at 300-301, 479 A.2d at 471 (“[A]wardability of interest as damages for delay rests upon the capability of characterizing the actions of the party so charged as wrongful ... In this respect, the Board action cannot be characterized as wrongful and, accordingly, this claim for interest cannot proceed under the common law regarding the award of interest damages.”); Restatement (Second) of ContRacts § 354 cmt. b (“Interest is not payable as damages for non-performance until performance is due.”) Thus, SERB’s award of 39-days’ interest is based on a reasonable and proper construction of the contract underlying Claimant’s entitlement to death benefits, the Retirement Code, and represents an award based on “[a] plain and simple consideration of justice and fair dealing.” Murray Hill Estates, Inc., 442 Pa. at 410, 276 A.2d at 542. In short, SERB committed no error in this regard.
Claimant next contends that SERB erred in failing to award her attorney’s [18]*18fees pursuant to the Costs Act. However, as we stated in Braig:
Because it is not yet ripe for our review, we decline to address Claimants’ argument that they are entitled to an award of costs and counsel fees under the act commonly referred to as the Costs Act[24] ... Claimants must first submit an application for such an award to the adjudicative officer, and a copy to SERB, within thirty days after this court’s order in accordance with the requirements of section 3 of the Costs Act, 71 P.S. § 2033(b).[25] The adjudicative officer must then make a finding of what fees and expenses are to be awarded, if any, within thirty days of receipt of the application. 71 P.S. § 2033(c).[26] Only upon the granting of a petition for leave to appeal from the adjudicative officer’s fee determination would we review the issue of costs and counsel fees.[27]
Braig, 682 A.2d at 889, fn. 18. Thus, this claim is not ripe for our review and will not be addressed in this appeal. Id.
Accordingly, the order of SERB is affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 1999, the order of the Pennsylvania State Employes’ Retirement Board, dated October 20, 1998 at Docket No. 1997-12, is affirmed.