Title: State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-
4908.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-4908 
THE STATE EX REL. MAGER v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF 
OHIO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4908.] 
Mandamus — Disappearance and eventual declaration of death of recipient of 
state retirement benefits — Abuse of discretion — Benefits to be paid to 
estate — Writ granted. 
(No. 2009-0406 ─ Submitted August 11, 2009 ─ Decided September 23, 2009.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel a 
public-employee retirement system to pay to the estate of the beneficiary certain 
retirement benefits that had been withheld from the time the decedent disappeared 
until the date she was declared dead.  Because the retirement system abused its 
discretion in withholding these payments, we grant the requested writ of 
mandamus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Facts 
Receipt of Retirement Benefits 
{¶ 2} In 1978, Richard Watzulik retired from respondent, State Teachers 
Retirement System of Ohio.  Richard selected a joint and survivor annuity with 
his wife, Violet, as the beneficiary.  See R.C. 3307.60(A).  Under this plan, 
Richard would receive a lesser retirement benefit for his lifetime, and upon his 
death, Violet would receive a benefit for her lifetime.  In 1989, after Richard died, 
Violet began receiving these retirement benefits. 
Withholding of Benefits and Decree Declaring Death 
{¶ 3} In March 2000, Violet disappeared.  In 2001, a Florida probate 
court appointed Robert M. Elliott as the plenary guardian of Violet’s property, 
and he requested that the retirement system forward her retirement-benefit 
payments to him.  The retirement system withheld the payments. 
{¶ 4} In September 2006, a Florida probate court declared Violet 
deceased pursuant to Fla.Stat. 731.103.  Section 3 of this statute provides that a 
person “who is absent from the place of his of her last known domicile for a 
continuous period of 5 years and whose absence is not satisfactorily explained 
after diligent search and inquiry is presumed dead.”  This provision is comparable 
to R.C. 2121.01(A)(1), which provides that, in general, a presumption of death 
exists “[w]hen the person has disappeared and been continuously absent from his 
place of last domicile for a five-year period without being heard from during the 
period.” 
Request for the Payment of Benefits to the Estate 
{¶ 5} In January 2007, the retirement system, being notified of the 
presumption of Violet’s death, advised Elliott that Violet had been “entitled to 
benefits in the amount of $152,774.10 for the months of March 2001 through 
September 2006,” and “[s]ince these funds were not issued prior to [Violet’s] 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
death, [her children] Eileen Mager and Carl Richard Watzulik are entitled to these 
funds as beneficiaries.” 
{¶ 6} Later that year, however, the retirement system changed its 
position and advised Elliott that it would not pay Violet’s estate any of the 
withheld benefit payments because “[a]bsent proof that Violet Watzulik was in 
fact alive during the period that her benefits were held, [the retirement system] is 
not authorized to issue any further benefits from the account.” 
{¶ 7} The Florida probate court appointed relator, Eileen Mager, Violet’s 
daughter, as the decedent’s estate’s personal representative.  Mager requested that 
the retirement system pay to the estate the withheld retirement-benefit payments, 
but the retirement system refused. 
Florida Case 
{¶ 8} In February 2008, Mager filed an action in a Florida court seeking 
to recover the withheld payments from the retirement system.  The retirement 
system filed a motion to dismiss the case because Mager’s remedy was by way of 
an action for a writ of mandamus in this court.  Mager subsequently dismissed the 
case. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 9} In February 2009, Mager filed this action for a writ of mandamus 
to compel the retirement system to pay her mother’s estate the retirement-benefit 
payments due from the March 2001 date that the system withheld payment until 
the September 2006 date of the Florida decree declaring Violet deceased. After 
the retirement system filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 
the court granted an alternative writ, and the parties submitted evidence and 
briefs.  State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 121 Ohio 
St.3d 1496, 2009-Ohio-2511, 907 N.E.2d 321. 
{¶ 10} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Legal Analysis 
Mandamus to Correct and Administrative Abuse of Discretion 
{¶ 11} Mager requests a writ of mandamus to compel the retirement 
system to pay her mother’s estate the retirement benefits it withheld during the 
time her mother was missing before being declared dead.  “[M]andamus is an 
appropriate remedy where no statutory right of appeal is available to correct an 
abuse of discretion by an administrative body.”  State ex rel. Pipoly v. State 
Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 
14.  Because there is no statutory right of appeal from the retirement system’s 
determination that Violet’s estate is not entitled to the sums collected in her 
retirement account between her disappearance and declaration of death, 
mandamus is an appropriate remedy.  Cf. State ex rel. Shisler v. Ohio Pub. Emps. 
Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009-Ohio-2522, 909 N.E.2d 610, ¶ 11.  To 
prove an abuse of discretion, Mager must establish that the retirement system’s 
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.  See State ex rel. 
Schachter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-
1704, 905 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 25. 
R.C. 2121.04 
{¶ 12} As her husband’s beneficiary, Violet began receiving retirement 
benefits pursuant to R.C. 3307.60.  Upon notice of her disappearance, the 
retirement system withheld payments.  When this disappearance met the 
requirements under Florida’s presumed decedents’ provisions, she was declared 
dead by the Florida probate court.  See Fla.Stat. 731.103(3); R.C. 2121.01(A)(1).  
Under R.C. 2121.04(A), “[i]f satisfied that a presumption of death has been 
established, as provided in section 2121.01 of the Revised Code, the probate court 
shall so decree.” 
{¶ 13} This case involves the effect of the death decree.  R.C. 2121.04(B) 
provides, “The death of such presumed decedent shall for all purposes under the 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
law of this state be regarded as having occurred as of the date of such decree.”  
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 14} In construing this statute, “our paramount concern is the legislative 
intent” in enacting it.  State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-
Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21.  To discern this intent, we must “read words 
and phrases in context according to the rules of grammar and common usage.”  
State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 559, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, 
¶ 23; Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. (2009), __ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2350, 
174 L.Ed.2d 119, quoting Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. 
(2004), 541 U.S. 246, 252, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d 529 (“ ‘Statutory 
construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the 
assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the 
legislative purpose’ ”). 
{¶ 15} “All” means “every” or “any whatever,” and “purpose” means 
“[a]n objective, goal, or end.”  See Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.2000) 1356; 
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002) 54. 
{¶ 16} Because R.C. 2121.04(B) is phrased in broad, sweeping language, 
we must accord it broad, sweeping application.  State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 
120 Ohio St.3d 110, 2008-Ohio-5041, 896 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 49; State ex rel. Ohio 
Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246, 2006-Ohio-5202, 855 N.E.2d 
1188, ¶ 14, quoting Consumer Electronics Assn. v. Fed. Communications Comm. 
(C.A.D.C.2003), 347 F.3d 291, 298 (“As United States Supreme Court Chief 
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. previously observed in a unanimous opinion for the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ‘the Supreme 
Court has consistently instructed that statutes written in broad, sweeping language 
should be given broad, sweeping application’ ”). 
{¶ 17} Manifestly, the plain language of R.C. 2121.04(B) dictates that the 
decedent was alive as a matter of law until September 2006, when she was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
declared dead by the Florida probate court.  The determination of when the 
decedent was alive and thus entitled to retirement benefits is certainly a “purpose” 
under state law. 
State ex rel. Hammond v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. (1972), 
29 Ohio St.2d 192, 8 O.O.2d 403, 280 N.E.2d 904 
{¶ 18} The retirement system argues that our decision in State ex rel. 
Hammond v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 192, 58 O.O.2d 
403, 280 N.E.2d 904, requires a contrary result. 
{¶ 19} In Hammond, we denied a writ of mandamus to compel the Public 
Employees Retirement System to pay benefits to a retiree’s trustee after the 
retiree’s disappearance.  In so holding, we construed a previous version of R.C. 
2121.04, which provided: 
{¶ 20} “If satisfied, upon such hearing [in the probate court], that the legal 
presumption of death is made out, the court shall so decree, and the presumption 
of death shall be regarded as having arisen as of the date of such decree.”  G.C. 
10509-28, 114 Ohio Laws, Part I, 407. 
{¶ 21} In our five-to-two decision in Hammond, we reasoned that the 
presumption arising under the former version of R.C. 2121.04 was for “certain 
purposes,” and therefore, the presumption could not establish the existence of 
actual life before the decreed death: 
{¶ 22} “Marjorie Hammond’s right to receive payments from the 
respondent is a personal right, continuing only during her actual lifetime.  
Although for certain purposes, the Presumed Decedents’ Act provides that the 
‘presumption of death shall be regarded as having arisen as of the date of such 
decree’ (R.C. 2121.04), such ‘presumption’ does not prove the existence of actual 
life prior to the decree, so as to enable a third person to receive property through 
or on behalf of the ‘missing’ person.”  Hammond, 29 Ohio St.3d at 194, 58 
O.O.2d 403, 280 N.E.2d 904. 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
{¶ 23} In assessing the impact of the current amendment to R.C. 2121.04, 
which became effective two years after our decision in Hammond, “[w]e must 
presume that the General Assembly knew of our decision” when it repealed the 
former version that we interpreted in that case.  State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 
7, 2008-Ohio-4824, 896 N.E.2d 110, ¶ 22.  “ ‘When an existing statute is repealed 
and a new statute upon the same subject is enacted to include an amendment, as in 
this case, it is presumed that the Legislature intended to change the effect and 
operation of the law to the extent of the change in the language thereof.’ ”  
Greenville Law Library Assn. v. Ansonia (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 3, 6, 62 O.O.2d 
169, 292 N.E.2d 880, quoting Malone v. Indus. Comm. (1942), 140 Ohio St. 292, 
299, 43 N.E.2d 266. 
{¶ 24} By repealing the previous version of R.C. 2121.04(B) and 
specifying in the amended version that the date of the probate court decree 
declaring the presumed decedent’s death shall be regarded as the date of death 
“for all purposes under the law of the state” and not simply for the “certain 
purposes” noted in Hammond, it is evident that the General Assembly, in effect, 
legislatively overruled our holding in Hammond. 
{¶ 25} Therefore, Hammond is not controlling in our interpretation of the 
current version of R.C. 2121.04. 
Liberal Construction 
{¶ 26} Finally, this interpretation of R.C. 2121.04(B) is consistent with 
the axiom that even if we were to hold that the statue is ambiguous, we must read 
it “liberally in favor of the interests of the public employees and their dependents 
that the pension statutes were designed to protect.”  State ex rel. Solomon v. 
Police & Firemen’s Disability & Pension Fund (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 62, 65, 647 
N.E.2d 486; State ex rel. Moss v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 97 
Ohio St.3d 198, 2002-Ohio-5806, 777 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 21.  The retirement system’s 
advocated construction of R.C. 2121.04(B) does not advance these interests. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Conclusion 
{¶ 27} Based on the foregoing, Mager has established that the retirement 
system acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconscionable manner by 
ignoring the plain language of R.C. 2121.04(B) and withholding the retirement 
benefits from the decedent’s personal representative when she was entitled to 
them under R.C. 3307.60.  Therefore, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel the 
retirement system to pay Mager the retirement benefits withheld from the 
decedent from the time she disappeared until the date she was declared dead by 
the Florida probate court. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Davis Island Law, P.A. and Jeffrey A Blau; and Hohmann, Boukis, & 
Curtis, P.A. and Kenneth Boukis, for relator. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and John E. Patterson, Assistant 
Attorney General, for respondent. 
____________________