Case ID: so2d_830/html/0917-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Raymond NICKERSON, Appellee.
    No. 4D02-892.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 20, 2002.
    James W.- Linn and John W. Forehand of Lewis, Longman & Walker, Tallahassee, and Daniel Abbott, City Attorney, and Robert M. Oldershaw, Hollywood, for appellant.
    Deborah Poore Knight of Walton Lan-taff Schroeder & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellee was an employee of the City of Hollywood from December 16, 1963 through March 23, 1984. We agree with the City that Ordinance No. 0-2001-03 did not change appellee’s conditions of retirement to allow him to obtain pension benefits when he turned fifty-five. Unlike the provision for a two percent cost of living adjustment, there is no express statement in the ordinance making the other provisions of it retroactive in all situations. Section 2 of the ordinance states that it “shall be effective retroactive to July 1, 1999.” If we were to construe the ordinance as appellee suggests, then this section would be meaningless. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

STONE, GROSS and STERN, KENNETH D., Associate Judge, concur.