AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, a retired district court judge, contested the calculation of his pension by the Public Employees Retirement Board (the Board), arguing that his pension should be based on his entire tenure as a judge rather than just the period between June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2014. The Plaintiff retired with fifteen years and one month of service credit (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: The matter was certified to the Court of Appeals by the district court after the Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the term “years of service” in Section 10-12B-9(C)(1) should refer to the retiree’s full tenure as a judge or justice, not just the period between June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2014 (para 8).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that “years of service” in Section 10-12B-9(C)(1) refers only to the years of service credit accumulated between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2014 (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the term “years of service” in Section 10-12B-9(C)(1) refers to a member’s entire tenure as a judge or justice or only to the period between June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2014 (paras 5-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s conclusion (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Michael D. Bustamante presiding and Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives concurring, held that the term “years of service” in Section 10-12B-9(C)(1) refers to the years of service credit earned between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2014. The Court's decision was based on a de novo review of the statute, considering the legislative intent, the statute's history and background, and the practical implications of the Plaintiff's interpretation. The Court found that the legislative intent was to decrease the amount of benefits paid out to members for service after June 30, 2014, to increase the solvency of the Fund. The Court also considered fiscal impact reports and the legislative history of the 2014 amendment to Section 10-12B-9, which created a two-step pension calculation. The Court concluded that interpreting “years of service” to include the entire tenure of a member would contradict the Legislature's intent to ensure the Fund's solvency and would result in an absurdity by giving members double credit for service after July 1, 2014. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Board's interpretation that “years of service” in Section 10-12B-9(C)(1) refers only to the period between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2014 (paras 5-24).