2018 UT App 214

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

PETE C. HACKFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

UTAH STATE RETIREMENT BOARD,

Respondent.

Opinion

No. 20161052-CA

Filed November 16, 2018

Original Proceeding in this Court

Thomas J. Burns and John D. Walch, Attorneys 

for Petitioner

David B. Hansen and Erin G. Christensen, Attorneys 

for Respondent

JUDGE KATE A. TOOMEY authored this Opinion, in which 

JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and DIANA HAGEN

concurred.

TOOMEY, Judge:

¶1 Pete C. Hackford seeks review of a decision of the Utah 

State Retirement Board (the Board) that his retirement benefits 

from two periods of public employment must be calculated 

separately and that his original retirement benefits remained 

subject to a statutory early age reduction. We decline to disturb 

the Board’s decision.

¶2 Hackford worked for the Utah Labor Commission in the 

Division of Boiler, Elevator, and Mine Safety (the Division) for 

nearly twenty years before seeking early retirement at age fifty. 

Upon employment, Hackford became a member of the Utah 

Retirement Systems’ (the URS) Tier 1 Noncontributory 

Retirement System, which allowed him to acquire retirement 
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 2 2018 UT App 214

benefits without personally contributing to the retirement 

system. As an eligible veteran, Hackford elected to purchase a 

credit for his nearly six years of military service to be applied 

toward his years of service credit with the Division. This meant 

that in April 2011, when Hackford entered early retirement, he 

had accrued about twenty-five years of service credit that 

applied toward his retirement benefits.

¶3 When Hackford applied for retirement, he signed a 

“Notice of Post-Retirement Employment Restrictions,” 

indicating that he understood that “[his] monthly benefit will be 

cancelled if [he] return[ed] to employment with a participating 

employer within one year of [his] retirement date.” He also 

signed a statement acknowledging that he “read and 

underst[ood] the retirement options . . . , stipulations about 

alteration, addition, or cancellation of retirement, and other 

limitations” in accordance with the statutes governing the URS 

and the Board. See Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-607(1) (LexisNexis 

2015). Because Hackford was fifty years old and retired with less 

than thirty years of service, his retirement allowance was subject 

to a statutory early age reduction. See id. § 49-13-402(2)(b) (Supp. 

2018).

¶4 Hackford retired on May 1, 2011, and began receiving his 

monthly retirement allowance. But the Division reemployed him

in his previous position the next month, on June 13, 2011. A

retirement counselor for the URS informed Hackford that, upon 

reemployment, his retirement benefit would be cancelled and he 

would be reinstated in the retirement system. And when he 

retired a second time, his original retirement benefit calculation 

would resume and the additional years of post-retirement 

service credit would be calculated as an additional retirement 

benefit. Hackford told the retirement counselor that he 

understood how his retirement would be calculated in the 

future. In August 2011, the URS received a Post-Retirement 

Employment Form signed by Hackford, notifying it that 

Hackford was reemployed with the Division. Beginning July 1, 

2011, the URS cancelled Hackford’s retirement allowance and 
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 3 2018 UT App 214

reinstated him to active member status in the retirement system. 

To date, Hackford is still employed with the Division.

¶5 In the fall of 2014, Hackford contacted the URS to request

an estimate of his retirement benefit with projected retirement 

dates of either January 1, 2015, or May 1, 2016. The estimates

provided that his original retirement allowance would resume, 

subject to the early age reduction, and that an additional 

allowance based upon the number of years of post-retirement 

reemployment service would be calculated separately.

¶6 Hackford requested to remove the early age reduction 

from his 2011 retirement allowance, which the URS denied. It

explained that, “at the time [Hackford] retired in May of 2011, 

[he] discussed [his] retirement with a counselor, [was] informed 

of the statutory reduction in [his] benefit due to early retirement 

and the applicable return to work provisions, and [he] decided 

to retire anyway.” In addition, Hackford was informed at the 

time of his reemployment that his additional service credits 

would be calculated separately as additional benefits and “the 

benefit that was canceled [would] also be resumed.” (Quotation 

simplified.) Based on his reemployment following the original 

retirement, the URS determined that, under the Utah Code, he 

was “not entitled to have the original benefit recalculated by 

removing the age reduction” upon his second retirement.

¶7 Hackford appealed the denial to the Board by filing a 

Request for Board Action, arguing that the URS “misapplied” 

the relevant statutory provisions and “improperly reduce[d] 

[his] accrued benefit under [his retirement plan].” Hackford and 

the URS filed cross-motions for summary judgment with the 

Board after first filing stipulated findings of fact. In Hackford’s 

motion for summary judgment, he argued that the early age 

reduction was improper because he “worked for the [Division] 

continuously from 1991 to the present, with the exception of a 

45-day period in mid-2011.” The URS opposed Hackford’s 

motion, stating that Hackford “fail[ed] to disclose in any way

that the missing ‘45-day period’ was the result of his retirement 
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 4 2018 UT App 214

and that during this period he received a monthly defined 

benefit of retirement allowance as a qualified retiree under [the] 

Utah Code.” And in its own motion for summary judgment, the 

URS argued that, pursuant to the Utah Code, Hackford’s “2011 

retirement allowance [had] vested” and that his “retirement, 

including the early age reduction[,] is irrevocable and cannot 

now be altered.”

¶8 The Board heard arguments on the motions and 

ultimately determined that the URS correctly calculated 

Hackford’s retirement benefits. It concluded that, pursuant to 

Utah Code section 49-11-1204,1 Hackford’s “new total 

[retirement] allowance” was “the sum of two amounts”:

1) the original allowance from his retirement in 

2011 that was being paid at the time of cancellation 

[and reemployment], which would be resumed 

[upon his second retirement]; and 2) an additional 

allowance calculated based on the formula in effect 

at the date of the subsequent retirement for all 

service credit accrued between his retirement in 

2011 and a subsequent retirement date.

See Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-1204(2), (5)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 

2018). The Board therefore granted summary judgment in favor 

of the URS.

¶9 Hackford seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, 

contending that it misinterpreted Utah Code section 49-11-1204 

 

1. At the time of the appeal before the Board the relevant 

statutory provisions of the Utah Code were re-codified, but no 

substantive changes were made. Compare Utah Code Ann. 

§ 49-11-505 (LexisNexis 2015), with id. § 49-11-1204 (Supp. 2018). 

Both parties agree that the result of this dispute would be the 

same under either version of the Utah Code. We therefore refer 

to the most recent versions of the Utah Code.
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 5 2018 UT App 214

and thus erred by subjecting his retirement benefits to the “early 

age retirement reduction.”2 The Board’s application or 

interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review for 

correctness. McLeod v. Retirement Board, 2011 UT App 190, ¶ 9, 

257 P.3d 1090.

¶10 When interpreting statutes, “we look first to the statute’s 

plain language to determine its meaning.” Id. ¶ 12 (quotation 

simplified). “To determine the meaning of the plain language, 

we examine the statute in harmony with other statutes in the 

same chapter and related chapters.” Id. (quotation simplified). 

And we will liberally construe the provisions of the Utah State 

Retirement and Insurance Benefit Act “to provide maximum 

benefits and protections consistent with sound fiduciary and 

actuarial principles.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also Utah 

Code Ann. § 49-11-103(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018).

¶11 Hackford contends the Board improperly determined that 

Utah Code section 49-11-1204(5)(b) applied to him, arguing that 

subsection (5)(b) could apply to him only if subsections (4)(a), 

(4)(b), and (3)(a) applied to him. We disagree.

¶12 When a retiree becomes “reemploy[ed] with a 

participating employer . . . within one year of the retiree’s 

retirement date,” the URS “shall cancel the retirement allowance 

of [that] retiree.” Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-1204(2) (LexisNexis 

 

2. To the extent Hackford argues that the early age reduction will 

apply to his second retirement benefit calculation, we do not 

reach that argument. Because Hackford is still employed by the 

Division, the calculation of his second retirement allowance will 

be “based on the formula in effect at the date of the subsequent 

retirement for all service credit accrued between the first and 

subsequent retirement dates.” See Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-

1204(2), (5)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018); see also id. § 49-13-402(2) 

(providing the formula for retirement allowances based on age 

and years of service at the time of retirement).
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 6 2018 UT App 214

Supp. 2018). But when a retiree becomes reemployed more than 

one year after the retiree’s retirement date, the retiree “may elect 

to” either “(a) cancel the retiree’s retirement allowance and 

instead earn additional service credit” or “(b) continue to receive 

the retiree’s retirement allowance, forfeit earning additional 

service credit, and forfeit any retirement-related contribution 

from the participating employer that reemployed the retiree.” Id.

§ 49-11-1204(3).

¶13 If the “retiree’s retirement allowance is cancelled,” either 

under subsection (2) or subsection (3)(a), “and the retiree is 

eligible for retirement coverage in a reemployed position, the 

office shall reinstate the retiree to active member status on the 

first day of the month following the date of the employee’s 

eligible reemployment.” Id. § 49-11-1204(4)(a). And if that retiree 

retires “two or more years after the date of reinstatement to 

active membership, the [URS] shall”:

(i) resume the allowance that was being paid at the 

time of cancellation; and

(ii) calculate an additional allowance for the retiree 

based on the formula in effect at the date of the 

subsequent retirement for all service credit accrued 

between the first and subsequent retirement dates.

Id. § 49-11-1204(5)(b); see also id. § 49-11-607(1) (2015) (providing 

that “[a]fter the retirement date, which shall be set by a member 

in the member’s application for retirement, no alteration, 

addition, or cancellation of a benefit may be made except as 

provided” by law).

¶14 Hackford’s argument that subsection (5)(b) cannot apply 

to him because subsection (3)(a) does not apply to him is 

irrelevant. To begin with, while satisfaction of subsection (4)(a) is 

a predicate to reaching subsection (5)(b), the same cannot be said

about subsection (3)(a). First, subsection (5)(b) expressly states 

that subsection (4)(a) must have been satisfied, but neither 
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 7 2018 UT App 214

subsection (4)(a) nor subsection (5)(b) expressly requires 

subsection (3)(a) to be satisfied. Satisfaction of either subsection 

(2) or subsection (3)(a) will suffice to trigger subsection (4)(a) 

because subsection (4)(a) requires that the retiree’s retirement 

allowance is cancelled and the retiree, based on eligibility, is 

reinstated as an active member of the URS. See id. § 49-11-

1204(2)–(4)(a). Second, subsection (2) and subsection (3) are 

mutually exclusive. A reemployed retiree cannot become 

reemployed both within one year of the retiree’s original 

retirement date, see id. § 49-11-1204(2) (Supp. 2018), and also 

become reemployed more than one year after the original 

retirement, see id. § 49-11-1204(3).

¶15 Here, Hackford retired in May 2011 and received his 

retirement allowance for May and June 2011. In mid-June 2011, 

the Division reemployed him, and the URS reinstated him to 

active membership status in the retirement system and cancelled 

his retirement allowance effective July 1, 2011. See id. § 49-11-

1204(2), (4)(a). Because Hackford became reemployed within one 

year of his retirement, subsection (2) applied and the URS 

followed the mandates of subsections (2) and (4)(a). Then, in 

2014, Hackford requested estimates of his retirement benefits for 

“projected” retirement dates of January 1, 2015, and May 1, 2016. 

Hackford therefore projected to retire a second time “two or 

more years after the date of [his] reinstatement to active 

membership,” triggering subsection (5)(b). Id. § 49-11-1204(5)(b). 

As a result, and as the statute requires, his retirement “allowance 

that was being paid at the time of cancellation”—in other words, 

his original retirement benefit—would resume on either of those 

projected dates and “an additional allowance . . . for all service 

credit accrued between the first and subsequent retirement 

dates” would be calculated “based on the formula in effect at the 

date of the subsequent retirement.” Id.

¶16 It appears Hackford argues in the alternative that only 

subsection (2) of Utah Code section 49-11-1204 applies to him 

and therefore his original retirement was cancelled altogether 

upon reemployment, allowing for a recalculation of his 
Hackford v. Utah State Retirement Board

20161052-CA 8 2018 UT App 214

retirement in its entirety rather than as two separate periods of 

employment. We agree with the Board that if this was the 

legislature’s intent in enacting this provision, the rest of the 

statute remains silent as to “what happens next to a retiree like 

Hackford whose benefit is involuntarily cancelled due to 

reemployment within one year of the retirement date.” This 

would mean that the “benefit is cancelled, and no statutory 

provision exists to reinstate it.” Because Hackford retired in 2011 

and was reemployed, see Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-1202(4)(a)

(LexisNexis Supp. 2018) (defining a “retiree”), he became subject 

to the reemployment rules and restrictions found in Utah Code 

sections 49-11-1201 through 49-11-1208.

¶17 Interpreting the statute as Hackford suggests would 

produce an absurd result. Instead, we interpret the statute to 

comply with the legislative intent that the Utah State Retirement 

and Insurance Benefit Act “be liberally construed to provide 

maximum benefits and protections consistent with sounds 

fiduciary and actuarial principles.” McLeod v. Retirement Board, 

2011 UT App 190, ¶ 12, 257 P.3d 1090 (quotation simplified); see

also Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-103(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018)

(“This [Act] shall be liberally construed to provide maximum 

benefits and protections consistent with sound fiduciary and 

actuarial principles.”).

¶18 The Board therefore did not misinterpret or erroneously 

apply the statute. Because Hackford officially retired at age fifty 

with only twenty-five years of service credit, those retirement 

benefits will remain the same and subject to the early age 

reduction no matter when he chooses to retire a second time. See

Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-1204(5)(b)(i); id. § 49-11-607(1). We 

therefore decline to disturb the Board’s decision.