Title: Ahern v. Mackey

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Ahern v. Mackey (2005-461)

2007 VT 27

[Filed 18-Apr-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 27

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-461

                             JANUARY TERM, 2007


  Shirley Ahern, Bonnie Bollman, Mary  }         APPEALED FROM:
  Booth-Benton, Edward Cooke,          }
  Joan Cotter, Susan Jacobs, Howard    }
  Lovering, Judith Lovering, et al.    }
                                       }  
      v.                               }         Washington Superior Court
                                       }
  Joe Mackey, Jon Harris, Jay          }  
  Kaplan, John Crowley, Jeb Spaulding  }         DOCKET NO. 16-1-04 Wncv
  and Richard Cate, Trustees of The    }
  State Teachers' Retirement System    }
  of Vermont                           }
                                                 Trial Judges: Alan W. Cook
                                                               Helen M. Toor

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiffs are fifteen members of the State Teachers'
  Retirement System who petitioned the Retirement Board for compensation and
  other related relief stemming from the purchase of out-of-state service
  credit when plaintiffs transferred retirement plans in 1981. The Board
  denied their request, and plaintiffs challenged the decision pursuant to a
  Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 complaint against the System and its
  individual trustees in superior court.  The court dismissed plaintiffs'
  tort and civil rights claims, and subsequently entered summary judgment for
  defendants, ruling that the Board had not abused its discretion or acted
  unlawfully in denying the request for relief.  On appeal, plaintiffs
  contend the court erred in: (1) dismissing their claims; and (2) ruling
  that plaintiffs were not entitled to extraordinary relief under Rule 75. We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  This is the second appeal related to this dispute.  The
  material facts are set forth in full in Jacobs v. State Teachers'
  Retirement System, 174 Vt. 404,