JEFFREY AMSEL, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, ETC., 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.
Jeffrey Amsel appeals a pension board decision applying a 1982 pension plan amendment that reduced his disability retirement benefits through expanded social security offset provisions. The court affirmed, distinguishing his case from prior precedent where retired officers' vested rights were protected, finding that because Amsel retired after the amendment's effective date, the new plan terms properly governed his benefits.
The court held that the 1982 pension plan amendment properly governed Amsel's benefits because he retired after the amendment became effective. Unlike officers who retired before the amendment and had vested rights protected from impairment, Amsel's rights were not vested until his formal retirement in 1983, at which time the amended plan applied.
[1] A police officer's pension benefits are governed by the plan in existence at the time of formal retirement, not the time of injury, if retirement occurs after a plan amen…
[2] A vested right in a pension plan accrues at the time of retirement and cannot be impaired by subsequent legislative changes.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the right of retired employees became vested at the time of their retirement and could not be impaired or reduced by subsequent legislation”
Establishes the vesting principle from Caradonna that protects retirement benefits for those who retire before plan amendments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmsel was injured in March 1982 while on duty as a police officer and was unable to return to duty. In October 1982, the City adopted an ordinance ame…
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 Vested Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Jeffrey Amsel seeks review of a circuit court’s affirmance of a decision of the City of Daytona Beach Pension Board. The Board decided that the pension plan in existence at the time that Amsel formally retired from the city’s police department governed his benefits rather than the plan in existence at the time he experienced his disability injury while on duty. He was injured in March, 1982 and apparently was not able to return to duty. When he later attempted to regain his job, he was told that the city would rehire him for a period of 90 days if he applied for police disability retirement. Apparently he waited until 1983 to apply for the disability retirement, but, unfortunately, on October 1, 1982 an ordinance was adopted by the city that changed pension benefits. While some new benefits were included, an extension of offset provisions was adopted that reduced benefits by 100% of social security disability payments.
In 1991, Amsel asked the pension board to determine whether the offset provisions of the October 1, 1982 amendment were improperly applied against him since his injury occurred prior to the amendment. The board answered in the negative and the circuit court agreed.
Amsel’s situation is unlike that of the retired police officers and fire-fighters in City of Daytona Beach v. Caradonna, 456 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), where they had retired on disability prior to amendment of the pension plan. This court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the right of retired employees became vested at the time of their retirement and could not be impaired or reduced by subsequent legislation. In the instant case, Amsel retired after the amendment. To his credit, he made the effort to return to work rather than immediately apply for disability retirement. Unfortunately, that effort and delay during the time the retirement plan was in the process of being amended worked to his disadvantage.
We treat Amsel’s appeal to this court as a petition for writ of certiorari and, in denying it, determine that he was afforded due process by the circuit court which applied the correct law. Branch v. Charlotte County, 627 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
PETITION DENIED.
DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mond v. State, 627 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- The City OF Daytona Beach v. Caradonna, 456 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)