I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CC - 0 1 1 7 9 - CO A KA YL A V AU GHN AP P EL LA NT
v. PUBLI C EM PLOYEES ’ RETI REM ENT S YST EM O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 21/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L
. KI DD CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : JIM W A R R E N III J AC OB T HOMAS E VANS S T UT Z M AN J OSH UA REI D D AN I EL A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL EE: J A N E L. M A PP NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED T HE DE CI S I ON OF T HE P UB L I C E M P L OYE E S ’ RE T I RE M E NT S YS T E M T O P AY T HE AC T UAR I AL EQU I VA LENT O F GU AR AN TEED P A Y M E N T S T O T H E R E T IR E E ’S S TAT UTORY S UCCES S ORS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 10/ 2015 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. W he n a membe ro f M i s s i s s i pp i ’ s Pu bl i c Em pl oyees ’ R et i r ement Sys t e m ( PER S) choos es t o r ece i ve r educe d mont hl y r et i r ementpa ym ent s thr oughoutherl i f e i n excha nge f

or guar ant eed pa ym ent s t o herbenef i ci ary fort w enty year s , w ho get s t he r emai ni ng guar ant eed p a y m e n ts if b o th th e re tiree a n d th e b e n e fic iar y d ie b e fo re th e tw e n ty -y e a r p e rio d ru n s o u t? A ccor di ng t o PER S, the r et i r ee ’ s s ur vi vi ng f ami l y m ember s do. B utappel l antK ayl a V aughn

### 2

s ays PE R S i s w r ong. I nst ead, K ayl a ar gues PE R S i s di r ect ed by s t atut e t o pay her , the ben ef i ci ary ’s s u rv iv in g fa m ily m e m b e r, e v e n th o u g h s h e is n o t r e la te d to th e re tir e e . ¶2. PE R S’ s payment t o the r et i r ee’ s s ur vi vi ng f ami l y m em bers com pli ed w i th both the lan g u a g e o f th e r e lev a n t sta tu te a n d th e re tiree ’s c h o se n p a y m e n t o p tio n b e fo re th e sta tu te exi s t ed. Y etK ayl a as ks us t o i nvertthe s t atut e and i ns t ead de cl ar e thatan exc ept i on t o the
s t atut e i s r eal l y the rul e. B utthe cl earrul e i s that , w hen both the r et i r ee a nd herdes i gnat ed benef i ci ary di e, the ac tuar i al equi val entof any future gua r ant eed pa ym ent s goes t o the
r et i r ee’ s s ur vi vi ng f

ami l y m ember s . A nd t he l i m i t ed exc ept i on i s thatany unca s hed che cks P E R S h a d iss u e d to th e b e n e fic iar y a n d a n y c o st-o f-liv in g a d ju stm e n t bas ed o n p ast p ay m e n ts to th e b e n e fi c ia ry g o to th e b e n e fi c ia ry ’s s u rv iv in g fa m ily m e m b e rs . ¶3. A f

t err evi ew , w e f

i nd P E R S f

ol l ow ed thi s rul e and i t s l i m i t ed exc ept i on and, i n doi ng
s o, gave e f

f ectt o the r et i r ee’ s i nt entw hen s el ect i ng herpaymentopt i on. ¶ 4
. W e th e re fo re a ff ir m . B ackgr ound F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶5. M ar

j or i e K ahn w as a s t at e empl oyee and cons equentm emberof PE R S. I n O ct ober 1999, s he appl i ed f

ordi s abi l i ty r et i r ement . L i ke otherappl i cant s , she w as gi ven a c hoi ce of paymentopt i ons. S he cho se “ O pt i on 4- B . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 11- 115( 1) ( R ev. 1999)
. U nderthi s opt i on, M ar j or i e w oul d r ece i ve “[ a] reduc ed re t i r emental l ow ance ” t hr oughouthe rl i f

e i n e xc ha ng e f

or“ the f

urthe rgu a r a nt e e of

pa ymen tt o the na med benef i ci ary, be nef

i ci ar i es , ort o the es t at e, f ora s peci f

i ed num berof

ye ar s c ert ai n. ” I

d. A nd if sh e o r h e r la st d e sig n a ted b e n e fic iar y d ied “ p ri o r to re c e iv in g a ll g u a ra n tee d p a y m e n ts

### Un der sectio n 2 5-1 1-1 17 .1(1 ): 1 

### Ex cept as o therw ise pro vid ed in subsectio n (2 ) of th is section , wh ere ben efits are payabl e t o a de si gnat ed be nef ic iary or bene fi ci arie s under this artic leand thedes ignate d bene fi ci ar

y or be nef

ic iari es as provi ded by the m em ber on the mos t rec ent

for m f il ed with thesys te m i s de ce as ed or othe rwi sedis qual if

ie d at the time su ch b enefits b ecome p ayab le, the fo llo win g p erson s, in descen din g o rder o f preced ence, sh all be elig ible to receive su ch b enefits: 3 d u e,” th en “the actu arial eq u ivalen t o f th e rem ainin g pa y m en ts w o u ld be pa id t o th e e sta te of the r et i r ed as i nt es t at e pr operty. ” I d. ¶6. M aj or i e nam ed her daught er , H eather V aughn, as her ben efi ci ary. M ar j or i e named no othercont i ngentbenef i ci ary. S oon af

t erm aki ng thes e el ect i ons , M ar j or i e di ed. So under O pt i on 4- B , PE R S began maki ng m onthl y payment s t o H eatheri n the amountof $922. 63, g u a ra n te e in g th e s e m o n th ly p a y m e n ts fo r t w e n ty y e a rs , th ro u g h O c to b e r 2 0 1 9
. ¶7 . S ix m o n ths a ft e r M a rjo rie ’s d e a th, th e L eg isl ature am en d ed sec ti o n 2 5 -11 -11 5 (1). T he revi sed O pti on 4-B dir ect ed P E R S , i n the even t “the ret i red m em ber or the las t des i gnat ed bene f

i ci ary both di e bef

or e r ece i vi ng al l gua r ant eed payment s due , ” t o pay “the actuar i al equi val entof

the r emai ni ng payment s . . . under[ the new l y creat ed] Sect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1) [
. ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 11- 115( 1) ( R ev. 2 01 0) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 1 0 ), enacted by 2 0 0 0 M is s . L a w s , C h . 6 2 8 , § 2 (H .B . 1 2 8 1 ))
. ¶ 8
. I n Au g u s t2 0 1 1 , He a th e ra l s o d i e d
. Tr a v e l i n g u n d e rr e v i s e d Opt i o n 4
- B, PE RS cal cul at ed the ac tuar i al equi val entof the more than ei ghtyear s o f r emai ni ng guar ant eed payment s t o b e $1 10 , 16 3. PER S the n l oo ke d t o s e c t i on 25
- 11
- 11 7. 1( 1) , w hi c h, a c c or di ng t o PERS, di r ect ed i tt o p a y the r e mai ni ng mone y t o M a r j or i e ’ s s t a tut ory s uc c e s s or s . So 1

### (a) The s urviving spouseof t he m em ber or retiree ; (b) Th e childre no f th e me mb ero r retiree or their descen dants, per stirp es; (c) Th e bro thers and sisters of the member or retiree or th eir descen dants, per stirp es; (d) The pare nts of the m em ber or retiree ; (e ) The exe cut or or administ rator on beha lf of theme mbe r or retiree ’s es tate ; ( f ) The per sons enti tl edbyl aw t o d i s tribut i onof the me mbe r or

re tire e’ s e st at e. Under se ction 25- 11-117. 1(2) : 2 

### Any mo nth lyb en efits pay able to a ben eficiary who dies p rior to cashin g h is or he r f in alc he c k(s ) and/or

any a dditional be nef

it s payabl e pur suant to Sec ti on 25 -11 -11 2 still p ayab le at the d eath o f a ben eficiary rece ivin g mo nth ly ben efits shall b e paidas follo ws: (a) The s urviving spouseof t he be nef ic iary; (b) The chi ldren of the bene fi ci ar y or the ir des ce ndant s, per stirpes; (c ) T h e b ro th ers andsisters of th e ben eficiary o r their descen dants, per stirp es; (d) The pare nts of the be nef ic iary; ( e ) The e xec ut or

o ra dm i ni s tr at or on be hal f of the bene fi ci ar

y’s es tate ; ( f ) The per sons enti tl ed b y l aw t o d i s tribut i onof the bene fi ci ar

y’s es tate . 4 P E R S c o n tac ted M a rjo rie ’s f a m ily to d e ter m in e w h ich o f M a rjo ri e ’s su rv iv in g fa m ily
m e m b e rs w e re e n title d to th is p a y m e n t. ¶9. PE R S al s o cont act ed H eather ’ s f ami l y, i nf

or m i ng them that , bas ed on s ubs ect i on ( 2) of s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1, they w er e ent i t l ed t o a pr or at ed cost
- of
- l i vi ng adj us t m entf

orthe p o rtio n o f th e 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 2 fisc a l y e a r w h e n H e a th e r w a s s til l aliv e a n d re c e iv e d m o n th ly p a y m e n ts . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -11 -11 7 . 1 (2). 2

### Heath er andKay la sharedthe same fath er but haddifferent moth ers. 3 

### 5 ¶10. A t thi s poi nt , H eather ’ s hal f
- s i s t er , K ayl a V aughn, obj ect ed t o PE R S di s tr i but i ng the actuar i al equi val entof

the r emai ni ng pa ym ent s t o M ar j or i e’ s s t atut ory s ucce s s or s . I ns t ead, K ayl a i ns i s t ed thateven though s he i s notr el at ed t o M ar j or i e, PE R S shoul d gi ve herthe

3
re m a in d e r o f M a rj o ri e ’s re tir e m e n t b e n e fi ts . ¶1 1
. A s K ay la saw it , the $ 1 1 0 , 1 6 3 sh o u ld h av e b ee n p aid to H ea ther’s statutory su cc esso rs unders ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 2) , notret i r ee M ar j or i e’ s s t atut ory s ucce s s or s unders ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1)
. W he n PERS r e j e c t e d h e rpo s i t i on , K a yl a a s ke d f ora nd w a s gr a nt e d a n
a d m in is tr a tiv e h e a ri n g b e fo re th e C la im s C o m m itte e fo r t h e P E R S B o a rd o f T ru s te e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 11- 120( 1) ( R ev. 2010)
. T he C om m i t t ee c onf i r m ed the $110, 163 w as t o be pai d t o Ma rjo rie ’ s s ucce s s or s unde rs ubs ect i on ( 1) , notH eather ’ s s ucce s s ors un der
s ubs ect i on ( 2)
. A nd the B oar d of T rus t ees adopt ed the C om m i t t ee’ s r ecomm endat i on. ¶ 1 2
. K a y la th e n a p p e a le d to th e H in d s C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 1 1 -1 2 0 (2 ). T h e c ir cu itco u rtaffirm ed P E R S ’s de cisi o n . B u t th e c o u rtd id g ran t K ay la’s req u est to en

join P E R S fro m d isbu rsi n g the $ 1 1 0 , 1 6 3 to M arjorie’s su cc esso rs un ti l K ay la’s appea l bef

or e thi s courti s f

i nal l y r es ol ved.

D i s cus s i on I . M arj or i e ’ s I nt e nt ¶13. W hi l e PE R S and K ayl a hot l y di s put e the s i gni f i canc e of the l anguage i n both r evi s ed O p tio n 4 -B a n d s e c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 , n e ith e r h a s d isp u ted th a t th is la n g u a g e c o n tro ls, d e sp ite

### 6

the f actthats ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 w as noteven pa r tof the PE R S r et i r ements t atut es w hen M a rjo rie se lec ted O p tio n 4 -B . S til l, o u r law is c lea r th a t th e se sta tu tes c a n n o t b e a p p lied in
a w a y th a t d e fe a ts th e c le a r i n te n tio n o f t h e d e c e a s e d re tir e d m e m b e r. I n r e Estat e of

D i l l on , 6 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 3 -0 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); s ee al s o P ub. E m

ps ’R et . Sy s . v. P or t er , 763 So. 2d 8 4 5 , 8 4 9 -5 0 (¶ ¶ 1 4 -1 6 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶14. B y s el ect i ng O pt i on 4-B

— as t hat opti on ex i st ed i n 19 99— M ar j or i e’ s i nt ent w as
o b v io u s. S h e c h o se th e p a rticu lar o p tio n th a t en su re d h e r th a t if s h e a n d H e a th e r b o th d ie b efo re a ll g u ara n teed p ay m en ts w ere m ad e, M ajorie’s intestate estate— i. e., M arjorie’s sta tu to ry h e irs— w o u ld r e c e iv e th e a c tu a ria l eq u iv a len t o f th e re m a in in g p a y m e n ts. T h is
m uch i s crys t al cl ear . A nd i ti s i nconce i vabl e f r om the PE R S s t atut es i n e f f ecta tthe t i m e of M aj or i e’ s r et i r ementappl i cat i on a nd s oon- af t erdeath thatM ar

j or i e i nt ended a ny r emai ni ng reti rem en t be n efit s w o u ld g o to H ea ther’s h eirs, sh o u ld H ea ther d ie b efo re a ll p ay m en ts w ere
m a d e . ¶15. So even i f

w e w er e t o agr ee w i th the di s s entthatK ayl a’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s ect i ons 25- 1 1 -1 1 5 (1 ) a n d 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 w a s c o rre c t— w h ich w e d o n o t— w e w o u ld s til l h a v e to re jec t th is i nt erpr et at i on as appl i ed to M a rj o ri e ’s re tir e m e n t b e n e fi ts . See Porter , 763 S o. 2d at849- 50 (¶¶14-16). H ad P E R S do ne w hat K ayla and the di ssentsugg est a n d paid H eat her’ s hei rs , i ns t ead of

M ar j or i e’ s , i tw oul d have unc ons t i tut i onal l y i m pai r ed M ar j or i e’ s contr actual r i ght t o have herh eirs rece ive th e re m aind er o f he r reti rem en t i f bo th sh e a n d H ea ther d ied b efo re
a ll g u a ra n te e d p a y m e n ts w e re m a d e . I d. ( ci t i ng U . S. C ons t . art . I , § 10; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 1 6 ).

### 7

¶16. U nl i ke K ayl a’ s and the di s s ent ’s persona l i nt erpr et at i ons , PE R S’ s i nt erpr et at i on of sect i on 25 -11-117
. 1 h as the ad van t age o f actuall y eff ect i ng M aj ori e’s i ntent . A nd becau se K a y la’ s in terp re tatio n d ire c tly c o n flicts w ith M a jo rie ’s c lea r in ten t— th a t hernextof ki n, not H eather ’ s , w oul d r ece i ve any r emai ni ng gua r ant eed payment s i f both s he and H eatherdi ed b e fo re 2 0 1 9

— w e m u s t r e je c t it. I I . P E R S’ s I nt erpre t at i on ¶17. Fur therm or e, PE R S’ s i nt erpr et at i on has the addi t i onal advant age of bei ng s uppor t ed b y th e s ta tu te ’s la n g u a g e .

A
. Standar d of

R evi ew ¶1 8
. B ecause thi s ap p ea l r aises a q u esti o n o f st atuto ry in terpretati o n , K ay la asse rt s w e m ust
re v iew P E R S ’s d e c isio n d e n o v o . W h ile it is tru e th a t “[a ]n a g e n c y ’s in te rp re tatio n o f its g o v e rn in g sta tu tes is re v iew e d d e n o v o ,” o u r su p re m e c o u rt h a s s a id w e m u st c o n d u c t th is
r evi ew “w i t h def

er ence t o the age ncy’ s i nt erpr et at i on. ” Mis s . Stat e & Sch. E m ps ’Li f e & Heal th P lan v. K C C, I

nc. , 10 8 So
. 3d 93 2, 93 9 ( ¶2 0) ( M i s s . 20 13 )
. “ [ W ] he n d e t e r m i ni ng the mostr eas onabl e and appr opr i at e i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e, the age ncy’ s i nt erpr et at i on i s an i m por t antf

act orthatus ual l y w arr ant s s tr ong cons i der at i on. ” D i amond Gro v e Ct r . , LLC
v . Miss . S ta te D e

p ’t o f H e a lth , 98 So. 3d 1068, 1071 ( ¶9) (M i ss. 2012)
. So “unl es s an agenc y’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a governi ng s t atut e i s r epugnantt o the pl ai n meani ng ther eof , the
court s ar e t o def

ert o the age ncy’ s i nt erpr et at i on. ” I d. ¶ 1 9
. S tate d d iffe re n tly , w e o n ly “ g iv e n o w e ig h t to a n a g e n c y in terp re tatio n ” w h e n it “is
so p lain ly err o n e o u s o r so inc o n sis ten t w ith e ith e r th e u n d e rly in g re g u latio n o r sta tu te a s to

### 8

b e a rbitrary , ca p ri ciou s, o r c o n trary to the u n am b igu o u s lan g u ag e o r be st r ea d ing o f a
s t atut e. ” KCC , 108 So. 3d at939 ( ¶20)
. T hi s m eans w e ca nnott ake the di s s ent ’ s appr oach and s ubs t i tut e PE R S’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 w i th ourper s onal pr ef er ence of how t o r ead the s t atut e. W e m us ti ns t ead uphol d P E R S’ s deci s i on t o pay M aj or i e’ s hei r s , not H eather ’ s , so l ong as i t s s t atut ory i nt erpr et at i on w as nots o i ncons i s t entw i th the r el evant
s t atut es as t o be arbi tr ary and capr i ci ou s. B eca us e w e f i nd PE R S’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on
a r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of s ect i ons 25- 11- 115( 1) a nd 25- 11- 117. 1( 1) , c ons i s t entw i th the

“ b e s tr e a d i n g ” o f

t h e s e s t a tu t e s , a n d c e r t a i n l y n o ta rb i tr a ry a n d c a p r i c i o u s , we mu s ta f f i r m. B
. “Monthl

y Benef i t s P ayabl e” ¶20. R evi s ed O pt i on 4- B di r ect s that , w hen both the r et i r ee a nd hernamed benef i ci ary have di ed, “ the actuar i al e qui val entof the r emai ni ng pa ym ent s s hal l be pai d underSect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1)
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 25- 11- 115( 1) (Rev. 2010). Sect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1) begi ns by
n o tin g th e re is a n e x c e p tio n
— “ E x c e p t as o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (2 ) . . . .” K a y la argues thi s “prefat ory p hrase” i s t here t o st eer PE R S im m ediat el y t o sub sect i on (2) and fi rs t det er m i ne i f

i t s pr ov i s i on s a pp l y. I f the y d o, the n a c c or di ng t o Kayl a the r e s tof
s u b s e c tio n (1 ) “ is n e g a te d ” a n d h a s n o a p p lic a tio n w h a ts o e v e r. ¶2 1
. A s o n e w o u ld im a g in e , K a y la a rg u e s su b sec ti o n (2) ap p li es h ere . U n d e r th is
s ubs ect i on, “A ny m onthl y be nef i t s pa yabl e t o a bene f

i ci ary w ho di es pr i ort o cas hi ng hi s or h e r fin a l ch e c k (s) a n d /o r a n y a d d iti o n a l b e n e fits p a y a b le p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 2 still p ay ab le at th e d ea th o f a b en eficiary rec eivin g m o n thly b en efit s sh all b e p aid
. . . [t o ] b roth ers and si st ers of the b enefi ci ary” w hen the b enefi ci ary has no survi ving spou se or descenda nts .

### 9

M i s s . C od e A nn . § 2 5- 11
- 11 7. 1( 2)
. K a yl a c l a i ms, s i nc e O pt i on 4- B gua r a nt e e d Hea the r
m o n th ly p a y m e n ts fo r tw e n ty y e a rs, th e re m a in in g e ig h t y e a rs o f p a y m e n ts w e re “ m o n th ly ben efi t s payab l e t o a b enefi ci ary w ho dies pri or t o cashing h i s or herfi nal check(s) [
. ] ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 (2 ). ¶ 2 2
. In o th e r w o rd s, K a y la is arg u in g tha t all tw e n ty y e a rs w o rth o f c h e c k s w e re “ m o n th ly benef i t s payabl e” t o H eatherthe mom entM ar j or i e di ed. She cl ai m s they b el onged t o the b en eficiary, H ea ther, no t th e re ti ree , M arjorie. T h u s, the y sh o u ld h av e p asse d to H ea ther’s sta tu to ry su cc esso rs. K ay la su g g ests that, if M arjorie h ad w an ted o n e o f herrel ati v es to
r ece i ve the money i f

H eatherdi ed, M aj or i e s houl d have na m ed a c ont i ngency be nef i ci ary. ¶23. L i kew i s e, the di s s entpoi nt s t o the l ack of a cont i ngentbenef

i ci ary as j us t i f

i cat i on f or
a w a rd in g th e re m a in d e r o f M a rj o ri e ’s re tir e m e n t b e n e fi ts to s o m e o n e th a t is n o t h e r h e ir
. See D i s . O p. at( ¶63)
. B utthe very f actM ar j or i e could h av e n am ed a c o n ti n g en t ben eficiary under cut s K ayl a’ s ar gum entthatal l tw enty year s w or th of r et i r ementbenef

i t s ful l y ves t ed i n H eatherthe m om entM ar j or i e di ed. H ad M ar

j or i e named a cont i ngentbenef i ci ary, the
r emai ni ng payment s w oul d hav e g on e di r ect l y t o thatper s on, notH eather
. A nd H eather
w oul d have ha d zer o abi l i ty t o overr i de M arj ori e’ s des i gnat i on and r edi r ectt o w hom the
r emai ni ng payment s w oul d go i n the eve ntof herow n death. Fur ther , M ar j or i e di d nothave t o na m e a cont i ngentbe nef i ci ary t o c ontr ol w hatw oul d ha ppen t o he rbe nef i t s i f both s he and H eat her di ed b efor e 20 19
. T h at i s becau se O pti on 4-B has a bui l t - i n cont i ngency . In th is
sc e n a ri o , th e b u il t- in co n ti n g en cy directed th at th e rem ainin g be n efit s w o u ld be pa id to M ar j or i e’ s hei r s . So by sel ect i ng O pt i on 4- B , M ar j or i e di r ect ed exa ct l y w hatw oul d happen

### 10

to h e r b e n e fi ts in th is e v e n t. ¶ 2 4
. T h e d iss e n t’s p re fe rre d m e th o d o n ly w o rk s if a ll th e re m a in in g m o n th ly p a y m e n ts
ves t ed i n H eatherthe mom entM aj or i e di ed. B utthi s w as nots o. H eatheronl y had a r i ght t o eac h m onthl y paymentthe mont h i t s became “payabl e”— i
. e. , due and ow i ng. A tno poi nt coul d H eatherhave de m anded PER S hand overthe remai ni ng payment s ear l y. T hus , the
o n ly “ m o n th ly b e n e fits p a y a b le” to H e a th e r a t th e tim e sh e d ied d e a th w e re th e m o n th ly payment s thathad alr eady be com e due . N o fu tu re m o n th ly p a y m e n ts w e re “ p a y a b le” to H eatheronce she di ed. I ns t ead, t he r emai ni ng m onthl y paym ent s had t o be pai d acc or di ng to O p tio n 4 -B .

C
. T h e E x c e p tio n a n d

th e R u le ¶25. R evi s ed O pt i on 4- B i s cl ear . I t s peci f i cal l y s ays that the actuar i al equi val ent of the
rem ai ning pay m ents shal l be p ai d u nd er s u b se c tio n (1) of s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1. R evi s ed O pt i on 4- B does notr ef er ence s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 gener al l y, nor do es i tm ent i on
s ubs ect i on ( 2) s peci f

i cal l y. I ns t ead, i ts peci f i cal l y di r ect s PER S t o a ctunde rthe pr ovi s i on
o f su b sec tio n (1) o f 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 5 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶ 2 6
. K a y la sk irts th is c le a r d ir e c tiv e b y a rg u in g su b se c tio n (1 ) b e g in s w ith a re d ire c t to
s u b s e c tio n (2 ). T h e d is s e n t e c h o s th is v ie w . See D i s . O p. at( ¶65)
. E s s ent i al l y, they ar gue the exc ept i on t o s ubs ect i on ( 1) i s the actual rul e. B utthi s ar gum entpr act i cal l y r ender s the p ro v isio n s o f su b se c tio n (1 ) irre lev a n t— th e v e ry p ro v isio n se c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 5 (1 ) e x p re ss ly
s ays s hal l govern. ¶27. A ccor di ng t o K ayl a and the dis sent , sub sect i on (1) w ou l d on l y app l y w hen the

### 11

benef i ci ary pr edec eas es the r et i r ee. W hi l e w e agr ee thatthi s s cena r i o cert ai nl y i s pos s i bl e, th e o b v io u s a n ticip a ted o u tco m e is th a t th e re tiree w ill p re d e c e a se th e b e n e fic iar y . A fte r a ll, th e w h o le r e a so n a re tiree n a m e s a b e n e fic iar y is fo r th e p e rc e iv e d a n d m u c h m o re p ro b a b le out come thatthe r et i r ee w i l l di e f i r s t . B uta s K ayl a i nt erpr et s s ect i on 25 -11- 117. 1,
s ubs ect i on ( 1) ’ s pr ovi s i ons w er e des i gned f orthe m uch l es s l i kel y out come— i
. e. , t he

“ e x c e p tio n ”

— w h ile s u b se c tio n (2 )’s p ro v is io n s a re re a lly th e ru le. T h e p ro b lem w ith th is interpre tat ion is th at, b ase d o n the p lai n lang u ag e o f sec ti o n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 . 1 , the L eg isl ature d e s ig n a te d s u b s e c tio n (2 ) a s a n “ e x c e p t[io n ]” to s u b s e c tio n (1 )’ s ru le
. ¶28. E qual l y cl ear i s r evi s ed O pt i on 4- B ’ s l anguage that s ubs ect i on ( 1) of s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 i s t o govern w ho i s pai d the ac tuar i al equi val entof r emai ni ng p aym ent s , not
su b se c tio n (2 ). M iss . C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 5 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 1 0 ). S o P E R S ’s in terp re tatio n is notonl y r eas onabl e, i ti s cor r ect . Subse ct i on (2) ’ s provi s i ons ar e onl y t o govern paymentof chec ks al r eady i s s ued t o the benef i ci ary butuncas hed and otherpayment s s t i l l payabl e t o the benef i ci ary w hen he ors he di es
— l i ke t he cos t - of
- l i vi ng adj us t m entPE R S pai d K ayl a as H e a th e r’ s s u c c e s s o r. ¶2 9
. “T h e p ri m ary rule o f [ statu tory ] co n stru cti o n i s t o asce rt ain the inten t of th e legislatu re f r om the s tat ut e as a w hol e and f r om the l anguage us ed ther ei n. ” I n r e G uar di ans hi

p of D u c ke tt , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 8 1 -82 (¶37) ( M i ss. 20 0 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed an d cit ati o n o m itted). A n d h e re , b a s e d o n th e s tru c tu re o f s e c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 , w h e n re a d a s a w h o le , i ti s cl earthe L egi s l atur e i nt ended f

or subsect i on ( 1) t o govern paymentof the l um p- s um actuar i al
e q u iv a len t o f a n y re m a in in g fu tu re p a y m e n ts, w h ile s u b se c tio n (2 ) is to g o v e rn p a y m e n ts

### 12

al r eady s entt o the bene f i ci ary and any otherbenef i tthat“s t i l l p ayabl e atthe dea th” of the b e n e fi c ia ry . ¶30. U nderthis st rai gh t for w ard i nterpret at i on , t he legi sl at i ve int ent i n the re vi s ed O pt i on 4- B l i nes up di r ect l y w i th M aj or i e’ s i nt enti n s el ect i ng the ol d O pt i on 4- B

— thather
s t a tu t o ry h e i r s wo u l d r e c e i v e t h e a c tu a r i a l e q u i v a l e n to f a n y r e ma i n i n g p a y me n t s . By contr as t , K ayl a’ s ar gum entr el i es on hercl ai m thati ti s pl ai nl y and unam bi guous l y the L eg isl ature ’s i n tent that sh e— w h o is of no r elat i on w hat s oeve rt o a s tat e r et i r ee — sh o u ld
re c e iv e m o re th a n $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in sta te r e tirem e n t b e n e fits. W e fin d th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te
s im p ly d o e s n o t s u p p o rt th is v ie w . ¶31. Inst ead, the s ucci nctrul e i s thatthe r et i r ee ’ s f a mi l y ge t s the a c tua r i a l e qu i va l entof the r emai ni ng guar ant eed payment s w hen both the r et i r ee and herde s i gnat ed bene f i ci ary ( or benef i ci ar i es ) ar e dea d. T he l i m i t ed exce pt i on i s thatany mont hl y chec k al r eady w r i t t en but
n o t ca sh e d b y th e d e c e a se d b e n e fic iar y (p lu s a n y c o st-o f-liv in g a d ju stm e n t fo r p a y m e n ts al r eady made) s hal l be pa i d t o thatbenef i ci ary’ s s ur vi vi ng f

ami l y m ember s . PE R S f ol l ow ed th e ru le a n d its lim ite d e x c e p tio n . T h e re fo re , w e a ff ir m its d e c is io n . ¶ 3 2
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E H IN D S C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS AF F I R ME D . A L L C OS T S O F T HI S A P P E A L A R E A S S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT. L E E , C .J ., B A R N E S , R O B E R T S , C A R L T O N , F A I R A N D J A M E S , J J ., CONCUR. I RVI NG, P. J . , CONCURS I N PA RT AND I N T HE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EPARATE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON . GR I FF I S , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N , JO I N E D B Y I SH E E , J. GR I F F I S , P . J . , DI S S E NT I NG :

### 13

¶33. T he ques t i on t o be deci ded i s : w ho i s ent i t l ed t o be pai d $110, 163. 58, the amount of th e re m a in in g g u a ra n tee d a n n u ity p a y m e n ts th a t w e re o w e d b y P E R S a t th e d e a th o f M a rjo rie K ahn ’s desi gn at ed b enefi ci ary, H eat her V aug hn ? T he m aj ori ty co ncludes that M arj o ri e’s
e sta te is e n tit led to th e p a y m e n t. I find th a t H e a th e r’s h e ir s a re e n tit led to th e p a y m e n t. T h e re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY ¶34. I di s agr ee s l i ght l y w i th the m aj or i ty’ s ve r s i on of the f act s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory. T he
m aj or i ty m akes i tappea ras i f K ayl a V aughn w as the onl y pa r ty i n thi s l i t i gat i on thatar gued M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 gover ned t he out come of thi s appea l
. Such
w as n o t the c ase . P E R S ’s ex ec u ti v e d ir ec tor, i ts staff, B o ard of T rustee s, an d the c ir cu itco u rt al l det erm i ned thats ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 governed thi s de ci s i on. I ndeed, no party orcourthas
ar gued orcons i der ed thatt he now
- r epea l ed ver s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 2 5
- 1 1
- 1 1 5 ( 1 ) ( S u p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ma y g o v e rn th e o u t c o me o f th i s l i t i g a t i o n u n t i l n o w. ¶35. T he f

act s ar e noti n di s put e. ¶36. M ar

j or i e r et i r ed on PE R S di s abi l i t y ret i rem ent, eff ect i ve N ovember1, 1999. She el ect ed t o r ece i ve bene f

i t s pur s uantt o O pt i on 4- B underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 115( 1) ( Supp. 1999)
. A tthatt i m e, O pt i on 4- B r ead: A r educe d r et i r emental l ow ance s hal l be c ont i nued thr oughoutthe l i f e of the r et i r ant , butw i th the f

ur therguar ant ee of

paym ent s t o the named benef i ci ary, benef i ci ar i es , ort o the es t at e, f ora s peci f

i ed numberof

year s cert ai n. I f

the re tired m e m b e r o r th e las t d e sig n a ted b e n e fic iar y re c e iv in g a n n u ity p a y m e n ts di es pr i ort o r ece i vi ng a l l guar ant eed pa ym ent s due, the ac tuar i al equi val entof th e re m a in in g p a y m e n ts w o u ld b e p a id to th e e sta te o f th e re tired a s in tes tate pr operty.

### 14

U n d e r th e first s e n ten c e o f th is o p tio n , M a rjo rie se lec ted a tw e n ty -y e a r p e rio d
. A s a re su lt of herdeci s i on, M ar

j or i e’ s benef

i t s underO pt i on 4B w er e t o end on O ct ober1, 2019. ¶37. M ar

j or i e des i gnat ed H eather , her daught er , as her benef i ci ary. M ar

j or i e coul d have
a l s o n a me d a c o n t i n g e n tb e n e f i c i a ry i n t h e e v e n to f

He a th e r ’ s d e a th , b u tc h o s e n o tt o n a me a cont i ngentbenef

i ci ary. ¶ 3 8
. M a rjo rie d ied Ja n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 0
. A t th a t tim e , P E R S h a d n o t p a id a n y o f th e b e n e fit payment s . A s a r es ul t , PER S bega n t o make pa ym ent s t o H eatheras M ar j or i e’ s des i gnat ed O pt i on 4- B benef

i ci ary. ¶39. H eather di ed i n A ugus t 2011. PE R S cont i nued t o pay m onthl y benefi t s t o H eat her unt i l herdeath. ¶4 0
. U p o n rece ipt of n o ti ce an d v erifi ca ti o n o f H ea ther’s d ea th, PE R S ch ec k ed M arjorie’s fi le at P E R S to se e if she h ad n am ed a c o n ting en t ben eficiary in th e e v en t her p ri m ary benef i ci ary di ed bef

or e the expi r at i on of

the tw enty- yearper i od. I f M ar j or i e had named a cont i ngentbenef

i ci ary, PE R S w ou l d h a ve pa i d the r e mai ni ng m onthl y benef i t s t o thatper s on. P E R S ’s revi ew determ i ned that M arj ori e had no tnam ed a con t i ng ent ben efi ci ary. B ecause
o f M a rjo rie ’s d e a th , H e a th e r’s d e a th , a n d th e la c k o f a c o n tin g e n t b e n e fic iar y , P E R S h a d to i dent i f y t o w hom the r emai ni ng benef i t s s houl d be pai d. ¶41. PE R S det erm i ned that M ar j or i e’ s f i l e di d no t i nclude t he name of any next - of
- ki n. PE R S se nta not i ce t o M arj ori e’s f ami l y thati nf

or m ed them of H eather ’ s death and s t at ed thatthe r emai ni ng bal ance w oul d be pai d t o M ar j or i e’ s s t atut ory s ucce s sor s under M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed sec ti o n 2 5 -11 -11 7 . 1 (1).

### 15

¶4 2
. T o n i V au g h n , H ea the r’s s tep m o th e r, c o n tac ted P E R S o n b eh alf of h er d au g h ter, K a y la. K a y la w a s H e a th e r’s h a lf-sis ter . K a y la a n d H e a th e r h a d th e s a m e fa th e r, b u t K a y la
w a s n o t re lated b y b loo d to M arjorie. K ay la claim ed that the re m ainin g an n u ity b en efits sh o u ld b e p a id to h e r a s H e a th e r’s n e x t-o f-k in a n d n o t to M a rjo rie ’s h e irs. T h ro u g h c o u n se l, K a y la r e q u e ste d a h e a rin g p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 2 0 , if P E R S m a in ta in e d its p o sitio n th a t p a y m e n t sh o u ld b e p a id to M a rjo rie ’s h e irs p u rsu a n t to
sec ti o n 2 5 -11 -11 7 . 1 (1). ¶43. B y l ett erdat ed N ovember8, 2011, PatR obert s on, P E R S’ s exec ut i ve di r ect or , s ent an admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on l ett ert o K ayl a’ s att orney thats t at ed PE R S’ s deci s i on: Sect i on 25-11- 117. 1( 1) appl i es t o benef i t s thatar e the pr operty of the dec eas ed m emberand thatbecom e p ayabl e t o the s ucce s s or s of the dec eas ed mem ber i n the abs ence of a named benef i ci ary. Sect i on . . . 25- 11- 117. 1( 2) appl i es s peci f i cal l y t o m onthl y benef i t s due and paya bl e t o a bene f i ci ary w ho di es bef or e he ors he has the opportuni ty t o negot i at e orcas h a che ck orchec ks iss u e d b e fo re h is o r h e r d e a th
. B e c a u se m o n th ly b e n e fits a re n o lo n g e r p a y a b le t o a be nef

i ci ary r ece i vi ng mont hl y be nef i t s upon hi s orhe rde at h, no further benef i t s w er e paya bl e t o M s . H eatherA nn V aughn upon herdeath; thus , no be ne f i t s a r e pa ya bl e t o M s . H e a the rA nn V a ug hn ’ s s uc c e s s or ( s ) f r om PER S. ¶ 4 4
. K a y la a p p e a led th e d e c isio n to th e P E R S B o a rd o f T ru s te e s . A h e a rin g w a s h e ld bef or e the C l ai m s C om m i t t ee of the B oar d of

T rus t ees on J anuary 24, 2012. ¶45. B ob R hoads , PE R S se ni orpol i cy adv i sor, tes t i fi ed t hat sect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 w as actual l y enac t ed t o be ef f ect i ve J uly 1, 2000, af

t erM ar j or i e’ s death. Pr i ort o thatt i m e, pur s uantt o s ect i on 25 -11- 115( 1) , “O pt i on 4B pr ovi ded thatthe pr es entval ue of the
re m a in in g p a y m e n ts w o u ld b e p a y a b le to th e e s ta te o f th e d e c e a s e d m e m b e r o r r e tir e e . . . .” R hoads als o t est i f

i ed thathe w as empl oyed by PE R S i n 2000 w hen the PE R S B oar d of

### 16

T rus t ees r eques t ed the new l egi s l at i on as partof i t s propo sed l egi s l at i ve pac kage f orthat y e a r. T h e re q u e st w a s m a d e b e c a u se th e p re v io u s lan g u a g e g a v e P E R S n o a ltern a tiv e b u t to pay the pr es entval ue of r emai ni ng benef

i t s t o the mem ber/r et i r ee’ s es t at e, w hi ch of t en
r equi r ed the openi ng orr eopeni ng of an es t at e many year s af t erthe dea th of

the
m ember/r et i r ee. R hoads st at ed, “i tw as the i nt entof the s t af f and the B oar d t o notchange the f actthatthe presentval ue of the r emai ni ng payment s [ w as ] due t o the s ucce s s or s of the dece as ed mem beror r et i r ee. W e j us tw ant ed t o f i nd a more conveni entw ay f orthe
s u c c e s s o rs to m a k e a c la im d ir e c tly w ith P E R S ra th e r t h a n th ro u g h a n E s ta te .” ¶46. Fol l ow i ng the hear i ng, the C l ai m s C om m i t t ee f ound “that the actuar i al equi val entof t he r e mai ni ng pa ymen t s a r e t o b e pa i d t o the s t a tut ory s uc c e s s or s of the dece as ed
m ember/r et i r ee, M ar

j or i e A nn K ahn, as l i s t ed i n Sect i on 25-11-11 7. 1( 1) [ , ] beca us e the des i gnat ed bene f

i ci ary, H eatherA nn V aughn, w as decea s ed w hen s uch bene f i t s w oul d have b e c o m e p a y a b le , a n d M s . K a h n d id n o t d e s ig n a te a c o n tin g e n t b e n e fi c ia ry .” ¶ 4 7 . P u rs u a n t t o M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 2 0 (2 ) (R e v . 2 0 1 0 ), K a y la appea l ed the PE R S deci s i on t o the H i nds C ou nty C i r cui tC our t . T he ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed K ayl a’ s r eques tf

ora pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on a nd e nj oi ned PE R S f r om di s tr i but i ng f

unds f r om M ar j or i e’ s acc ountdur i ng the pende ncy of the appea l
. T hen, on June 21, 2013, bas ed on the br i ef s s ubm i t t ed, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed i t s opi ni on and or derthataf f i r m ed the dec i s i on of PER S. A N A L Y S IS I
. Mar

j or i e’s I nt ent

### 17

¶48. I n i t s f

i r s ts ect i on, the maj ori t y deter m i nes that“[b] as ed on O pt i on 4- B — as that
o p tio n e x iste d in 1 9 9 9 — M a rjo rie ’s c lea r in ten t w a s th a t, sh o u ld s h e a n d H e a th e r b o th d ie b efo re a ll g u ara n teed p ay m en ts w ere m ad e , M a jorie’s intestat e e stat e — i. e., M arjorie’s
s t a tu t o ry h e i r s — wou l d r e c e i v e th e a c tu a r i a l e q u i v a l e n to f t he r e mai n i n g p a y me n t s . ” To deci de M ar

j or i e’ s “cl eari nt ent , ” t he m aj or i ty su a sp o n te deci ded thatthe pr e- amendm ent
v e rsio n o f se c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 5 (1 ) w o u ld g o v e rn the o u tco m e o f th is c a se e v e n th o u g h n o p a rty h a s a rg u e d it a s g o v e rn in g la w . ¶49. PE R S does notm ake thi s ar gum ent . I ns t ead, PE R S’ s s uppl ement al br i ef , w hi ch as ked
w hetherthe r epea l ed s t atut e appl i ed, s t at ed: “PE R S w oul d a r gue thatthe 2000 amendm ent t o M i s s . Code Ann. § 2 5- 11
- 11 5 a nd the e na c t mento f § 2 5- 11
- 11 7. 1, a s i tha s been i n t e rp r e t e d b y P ERS , d o [ ] n o td e p r i v e [ M a r j o r i e ] o f a s i g n i f i c a n tc o n tr a c tu a l r i g h t . ” P ERS argues that the p ost -am end m ent, curr ent ver si on of sect i on 25 -11-117
. 1 g ov erns. ¶50
. N evertheles s, the m aj ori ty cit es I n r e Es t at e of

D i l l on , 6 32 So. 2d 1298, 1303- 04 ( M i s s . 1994) , and P ubl i c E m pl oyee s ’Ret i r em ent

Sys t em v . P or t er , 763 So. 2d 845, 849- 50 ( ¶¶14- 16) ( M i s s . 2000) , f orthe gene r al legal p ropos i t i on thata PE R S st atut e “c annotbe appl i ed i n a w ay thatdef eat s the cl eari ntent i on of the dec eas ed r et i r ed mem ber
. ” The
m aj or i ty does notexpl ai n how thes e ca s es ar e appl i cabl e orr el evant . I am of the opi ni on th a t th e se c a se s a re ta k e n o u t o f c o n tex t o r a re fa c tu a lly d istin g u ish a b le. N e ith e r is d ire c tly
o n p o in t. ¶5 1. I ndeed , PERS’ s a r gu menttha tthe a mend mentt o s e c t i on 2 5- 11- 115( 1) “does not d e p riv e [M a rjo rie ] of

a s ig n ifica n t c o n tra c tu a l rig h t” s h o u ld in d ica te th a t th is C o u rt sh o u ld

### 18

n o ti n t e r j e c ti t s r e s e a r c h a n d l e g a l r e a s o n i n g t o d e c i d e t h i s c a s e . T h e ma j o r i ty s a y s i tk n o ws M arjorie’s “c lear inten t, ” b u t I d o n o t. T o m e, i t i s im p o rt an t th at th ro u g h o u t th is en ti re d isp u te, P E R S ’s s taf

f, P E R S ’s e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r, P E R S ’s B o a rd o f T ru ste e s, a n d th e c irc u it
courtj udge have al l r el i ed on and bas ed thei rdeci s i on on thei ri nt erpr et at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1)
. Thi s w as the r es ul tof thei rr el i ance on the amended
ver s i on of

s ect i on 25- 11- 115( 1) , w hi ch r ef err ed t o sec t i on 25-11- 117. 1( 1) f orr es ol ut i on of thi s paymentdi s put e. ¶5 2. Fur t her m or e, t he pr e- amendm entl anguage o f Opt i on 4
- B doe s notdeci de our i nt erpr et at i on beca us e the Legi s l at ure am ended the s t atut e w i thouta s avi ngs cl aus e. T he
e ffe c t o f th e L e g isla tu re ’s a c t w a s to a b ro g a te th e p re -a m e n d m e n t sta tu to ry lan g u a g e a s if it
nev er exi st ed. T he M i ssi ssi pp i S up rem e C ou rtsum m ari zed thi s general rul e as f oll ow s: M any decis i on s i n thi s st at e h ave aff i rm ed the rule, w hich gen eral l y p revai l s, thatthe ef

f ectof a r epea l i ng s t atut e i s t o abr ogat e the r epea l ed s t atut e as compl et el y as i f

i thad neve r been p asse d, and thata s t atut e modi f yi ng a p re v io u s s tatu te h a s th e sa m e e ffe c t as th o u g h th e sta tu te h a d a ll th e w h ile pr evi ous l y exi s t ed i n t he sam e l anguage as thatcont ai ned i n the modi f i ed s ta tu te , u n le s s th e re p e a lin g o r m o d if y in g s ta tu te c o n ta in s a s a v in g c la u s e . . .

. T he r es ulto f thi s rul e i s thatevery r i ghtorr emedy cr eat ed s ol el y by the r epea l ed orm odi f

i ed st atut e di s appea r s or f al l s w i th the r epea l ed orm odi f i ed s t atut e, unl es s carr i ed t o f i nal j udgm entbe f

or e the r epea l ormodi f

i cat i on, s ave thatno s uch r epea l ormodi f i cat i on s hal l be perm i t t ed t o i m pai rthe obl i gat i on o f a c o n tra c t o r to a b ro g a te a v e ste d rig h t. St one v. I

ndep. Li nen Ser v. C o. , 212 M i s s . 580, 586- 87, 55 So. 2d 165, 168 ( 1951) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); se e a lso U S P C I o f Miss ., In c ., v . S ta te , 68 8 S o. 2d 78 3, 78 6-87 (M i ss. 1997) ( “A n a m ended acti s or di nar i l y c ons trued as i f the or i gi nal s t atut e had be en r epea l ed,

### 19

a n d a s fa r a s a n y a c tio n a ft e r th e a d o p tio n o f th e a m e n d m e n t is c o n c e rn e d , as if th e sta tu te h ad b ee n o ri g inally en ac ted in it s am en d ed form
. ”). ¶ 5 3
. I r e c o g n ize th a t, o n O c to b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 9 , M a rjo rie e x e c u ted h e r a p p lica tio n fo r d isa b ili ty benef i t s , and s he s el ect ed O pt i on 4- B w i th tw enty year s cer t ai n. She di ed l es s than thr ee
m onths l at er . T he l aw i n ef f ectatthatt i m e, M i s s i ssi ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25 -11-115 (1) , O pti on 4-B (r epealed 200 0), provided that“[ i ] f the ret i red m em ber or the las t des i gnat ed bene f

i ci ary r ece i vi ng annui ty payment s di es pr i ort o r ece i vi ng al l guar ant eed p a y m e n ts d u e , th e a c tu a ria l e q u iv a len t o f th e re m a in in g p a y m e n ts w o u ld b e p a id to th e e sta te
o f t h e re tir e d a s in te s ta te p ro p e rt y .” ¶5 4
. In fa ct, as o f M arjorie’s de ath, th e L eg isl ature de term ined th at th e d ec ea sed m em b er’s
es t at e w oul d be the ca t ch- al l r eci pi entf orO pt i on 4-B benef

i t s r emai ni ng af

t erthe dea th of the mem berand herl as tdesi gn at ed benef i ci ary. H ow ever , thi s cat ch- al l pr ovi s i on di d not ap p ly at M arjo rie ’s d e ath b ec au se h er b en eficiary w as stil l al ive. B ase d o n M arjorie’s el ect i on, PE R S w as obl i gat ed t o pay H eather$922. 63 eac h m onth unt i l herl as tchec k on O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 1 9
. ¶55. J us tbef

or e H eathe rbe gan t o r ece i ve the O pt i on 4- B benef i t s , the Legi s l atur e amended th e s t a tu t o ry s c h e me un d e rw h i c h th e s e b e n e f i t s we r e p a i d
. Th e s t a tu t o ry c h a n g e b e c a me ef f ect i ve on J ul y 1, 2000. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 115( 1) w as amended, and M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1 w as cr eat ed. T he amended l anguage of s ect i on 25- 11- 115( 1) w as change d t o r ead: A r educe d r et i r emental l ow ance s hal l be c ont i nued thr oughoutthe l i f e of the

### During theadm ini strative hearing, i t wa s not ed that Mar jorie ' s a ppli cati on for 4 

### ben efits was co mpletedbefo re the statutorychan ge to Op tion4-B, wh ich occurred o n Ju ly 1, 2000. PERS se nior

poli cy a dvis or Bob Rhoa ds t es ti fi ed a s t o the effect that t he pre-2 00 0-amen dment lan g uag e hadonthe manner inwh ich P ER S p aid th e $1 10 ,16 3 in remainin g b enefits. M r. Rh oad s stated th at “[t]he law w as chan gedin 2 00 0. Ho w we p aid thepres ent

valuei s appl ie d prospe ctive ly to al l. We didn' t se gre gat e if you retiredbefore this d ate this ru le app lied; if y ouretire from an d after th is date, an oth er rule ap plies.” 20 reti ran t, b u t w ith th e furthe r gu ara n tee o f pay m en ts to th e n am ed b en eficiary o r b e n e fi c ia ri e s fo r a s p e c if ie d n u m b e r o f y e a rs c e rt a in
. I f the r et i r ed m em ber orthe las tdes ignat ed bene f i ci ary b oth di e bef

or e r ece i vi ng al lguar ant eed paym ent s due, the actuar i alequi val ent of the r em ai ni ng paym ent s s hal lbe p a id u n d e r S e c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 (1). ( E m phas i s added)
. T he Legi s l atur e cha nged the ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on. E f f ect i ve J ul y 1, 2000, i f b o th th e me mb e ra n d l a s td e s i g n a t e d b e n e f i c i a ry d i e d b e f

o r e th e e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e s u mcert ai n per i od, PE R S w as di r ect ed t o pay the r e mai ni ng be ne f i t s pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1)
. T her e w as no sa vi ngs cl aus e i n the l egi s l at i on. T he l egi s l at i on di d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een mem ber s w ho joi ned PE R S bef or e oraf t erthe ef f ect i ve dat e of

J ul y 1, 2000. P E R S, t he spons orof thi s l egi s l at i on, adm i t s t hi s fa ct . A nd 4 the maj or i ty does notaddr es s i t . W hati s cl eari s thatthe Legi s l atur e di r ect ed thats ect i on 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 b e a p p lied to a n y in sta n c e o c c u rrin g a fte r J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 0 , w h e re b e n e fits re m a in af t erthe dea th of

both the mem berand the mem ber ’ s l as tdes i gnat ed bene f i ci ary. ¶56. T hr oughoutthi s m att er , unt i l now , the part i es agr eed thatthe curr entM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i ons 25- 11- 115( 1) and 117. 1 w er e the appl i cabl e s t atut es and go verne d the
ou t com e of this dis pu t e. T hey , ho w ever, dis agreed as t o the proper i n terpret at i on of tho se
s t atut es . I di s agr ee w i th and di s s entf r om the maj or i ty’ s deci s i on t o appl y the now
- r epea l ed

### 21

v ersion o f sec ti o n 2 5 -11 -11 5 (1). I I
. PER S’s I

nt er pr etat i on ¶57. T he m aj or i ty al s o i ncl udes an al t ernat e f i ndi ng as t o the r es ol ut i on under s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 1)
. I di s agr ee w i th and di s s entf r om thi s i nt erpr et at i on. ¶58. O n O ct ob er 11 , 19 99 , M ar j or i e m ade a deci s i on as t o her PE R S benef i t s w hen s he
s i gned herappl i cat i on f ordi s abi l i ty benef

i t s and chos e O pt i on 4- B . A tM arj or i e’ s death, P E R S b e g a n to p a y H e a th e r t h e g u a ra n te e d m o n th ly b e n e fi ts . ¶59. A tthe t i m e of

H eather ’ s death, s ect i on 25- 11- 115( 1) , O pt i on 4- B pr ovi ded: A r educe d r et i r emental l ow ance s hal l be c ont i nued thr oughoutthe l i f e of the reti ran t, b u t w ith the fu rth er g u ara n tee o f p ay m en ts t o the n am ed b en eficiary o r b e n e fi c ia ri e s fo r a s p e c if ie d n u m b e r o f y e a rs c e rt a in
. I f the r et i r ed m em ber orthe las tdes igna t ed benef i ci ar y both di e bef

or e r ece i vi ng al lguar ant eed paym ent s due, the actuar i alequi val ent of the r em ai ni ng paym ent s s hal lbe p a idu n d e rS e c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 (1). ( E m phas i s added)
. Sect i on 25- 11- 11 7. 1, t i t l ed “R eci pient s of addi t i on al ben efi t s payab l e and check s not yetcashed w hen ben efi ci ary di es or i s di squali fi ed, ” reads: (1) Exc e

pt a s o the r wis e p r ov i de d i n s ub s e c t i on ( 2) o f this s ect i on , w h ere benef i t s ar e paya bl e t o a de s i gnat ed benef i ci ary orbe nef

i ci ar i es under thi s art i cl e and the des i gnat ed benef i ci ary orbe nef

i ci ar i es as pr ovi ded b y th e m e m b e r o n th e m o st re c e n t fo rm fi le d w ith th e sy ste m is d e c e a s e d o ro th e rwi s e d i s q u a l i f i e d a tth e t i me s u c h be n e f i t s b e c o me payabl e, the fol l ow i ng per s ons , i n des cendi ng or derof pr ece dence , shal l be eli gibl e t o recei ve such ben efi t s: ( a) T he s ur vi vi ng s pous e of the mem berorr et i r ee; ( b) T h e c h ild re n o f t h e m em b er or reti ree o r th e ir descen dan t s, per st i rpes; (c ) T h e b ro th e rs a n d sis ter s o f th e m e m b e r o r re tiree o r th e ir descen dan t s, per st i rpes; ( d) T he par ent s of

the mem berorr et i r ee;

### 22 ( e) T he exe cut ororadmi ni s tr at oron behal f of the mem ber or r et i r ee' s es t at e; ( f ) T he per s ons e nt i t l ed by l aw t o di s tr i but i on of the m ember orr et i r ee' s es t at e. (2) A ny m onthl

y bene f i t s payabl e to a benef

i ci ar y w ho di es pr i ort o cas hi ng h is orh er fi n a l che ck (s) a n d /or a ny a dd it ion a l ben efi ts pa ya b le pu rsuant to S ect i on 25-11-11 2 st i l lpaya ble atthe d eath of a b enefi ci ary r e c e i v i n gmo n th l

y b e n e f i t s s h a l lb e p a i d

a s f o l l o ws : ( a) T he s ur vi vi ng s pous e of the bene f

i ci ary; ( b) T he chi l dr en of the benef i ci ary or thei r des cenda nt s , per st i rpes; (c) T h e b ro th e rs a n d siste rs o f th e b e n e fic ia ry o r th e ir descen dan t s, per st i rpes; ( d) T he par ent s of

the bene f

i ci ary; ( e ) T he exe cut or or ad mi ni s t r a t oro n be ha l f of t he benef i ci ary' s es t at e; ( f ) T he per s ons e nt i t l ed b y law t o d i st ri bu t i on of t he benef i ci ary' s es t at e. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶60. M ar

j or i e chose O pti on 4 -B , u nd er sect i on 2 5-11- 115( 1)
. T hi s governs how her benef i t s ar e t o be pai d. ¶6 1. T he bene f

i t s ar e f i r s tp a i d t o the r e t i r a nt . M a r j or i e was e nt i t l ed t o “a r educe d reti rem en t al low an ce ” d u ring h er li fe “ b u t w ith the fu rth er g u a ra n tee o f p a y m e n ts t o the named benef

i ci ary orbenef

i ci ar i es f ora s peci f

i ed numberof

year s cert ai n. ” I

d. (e m p h a sis added)
. M ar

j or i e w as e nt i t l ed t o be pa i d a mont hl y be nef i tdur i ng he rl i f

e, a nd M ar

j or i e w as able t o n am e a person w ho w ou l d b e ent i t l ed t o a “g uarant ee of pay m ents ” fortw enty years. I d. ¶62. N ext , atthe dea th of the r et i r ant , the bene f

i t s ar e t o be pai d t o the r et i r ant ’ s des i gnat ed

### 23

b e n e fi c ia ry . I

d. M a rj o r ie d e s ig n a te d H e a th e r t o re c e iv e th e “ g u a ra n te e o f p a y m e n ts .” H e a th e r w a s p a id b e n e fi ts fo r a p p ro x im a te ly e le v e n y e a rs . ¶63. A tH eather ’ s de ath, unde rO pt i on 4- B , M ar j or i e coul d have de s i gnat ed a cont i ngent benef i ci ary t o re cei ve t he r emai ni ng benef i t s . S he coul d have na m ed any pe r s on, ent i ty, or heres t at e. She chos e nott o name a cont i ngentbenef i ci ary. ¶64
. B ecaus e the guar ant eed pa ym ents w ere notpaid i n ful l , sect i on 25 -11-115 ( 1) pr ovi ded how the r emai ni ng be nef i t s w oul d be pa i d. O pt i on 4- B a l s o pr ovi ded thati f the “re t i r ed
m e m b e r [M a rjo rie ] or th e las t d e sig n a ted b e n e fic iar y [H e a th e r] b o th d ie b e fo re re c e iv in g a ll g u a ra n tee d p a y m e n ts d u e , the a c tu a ria l eq u iv a len t o f th e re m a in in g p a y m e n ts s h a ll b e p a id
u n d er S ec ti o n 2 5 -11 -11 7 . 1 (1).” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 5 -11 -11 5 (1). ¶ 6 5 . T h e re fo re , I m o v e to se c tio n 2 5 -1 1 -1 1 7 .1 , w h ich is titl e d , “P e rso n s to w h o m b e n e fits pay able i n ev ent of

death of desi gn at ed b enefi ci ary. ” S ub sect i on (1) reads: E x c e p t as o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (2 ) o f th is se c tio n , w h e re b e n e fits ar e paya bl e t o a des i gnat ed benef i ci ary or be nef

i ci ar i es underthi s art i cl e and the des i gnat ed bene f

i ci ary orbenef

i ci ar i es a s pr ovi ded by the m emberon the m os tr ece ntf

or m f i l ed w i t h the s ys t em i s dece as ed orotherw i s e di s qual i f i ed atthe t i m e s uch benef

i t s be come paya bl e, the f ol l ow i ng pe r s ons , i n des cendi ng o rd e r o f p re c e d e n c e , s h a ll b e e lig ib le to re c e iv e s u c h b e n e fi ts : . . . . T he s ubs ect i on begi ns w i th the phr as e “[ e] xceptas otherw i s e pr ovi ded i n s ubs ect i on ( 2) of th is s e c tio n .” W e m u st c o n sid e r th e e ffe c t o f th is la n g u a g e ; w e c a n n o t ig n o re it. ¶6 6
. If w e c o n side r sub sec ti o n (1) w ith o u t th e re feren ce to su b sec ti o n (2), i t say s: “[W ] h ere benef i t s ar e paya bl e t o a d esi gnat ed bene f i ci ary orbenef

i ci ar i es underthi s art i cl e and the d e s ig n a te d b e n e fi c ia ry o r b e n e fi c ia ri e s . . . is dece as ed orother w is e dis qual i f i ed a t th e time

### 24

s u c h b e n e

fi ts b e c o m e p a

y a b le
. . . . ” ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d)
. I r e a d thi s l a ng ua ge t o s a y that subsect i on (1) on ly a p p li es w here the d esi gn at ed b enefi ci ary “i s deceased o r otherw i se di s qual i f i ed atthe t i m e s uch bene f i t s become payabl e. ” Thi s l anguage s peci f i cal l y l ooks at the poi nti n t i m e thatthe ret i rantdi es and the guar ant eed pa ym entves t s i n the des i gnat ed benef i ci ary( i es )
. I am of the opi ni on thats ubs ect i on ( 1) onl y appl i es w hen the des i gnat ed benef i ci ar i es a r e dead ordi s qual i f i ed atthe t i m e the r et i r antdi es , and then the amountof the g u a ra n te e d p a y m e n ts w o u ld b e p a id to th e re tir a n t’ s h e ir s b a s e d o n s u b s e c tio n (1 ). ¶6 7. Subse ct i on ( 2) i s cl e a rtha ti ta pp l i e s t o a ny guar ant eed be nef i t s ves t ed i n t he benef i ci ar i es . Subse ct i on ( 2) r eads : “[ A ] ny m onthl y benef i t s payabl e t o a bene f

i ci ary w ho d ies p ri o r t o ca sh ing h is or h er final ch ec k (s) .
. . sh all b e p aid a s follow s . . . . ” H ere , there i s no di s put e thatH eatherdi ed b efor e “ca shi ng . . . herf i nal chec ks
. ” A s a r es ul t , I am of th e o p in io n th a t th e s tatu to ry s c h e m e th a t c o n tro ls th e p a y m e n t o f th e g u a ra n tee d p a y m e n ts i s s ect i on 25- 11- 117. 1( 2) , and the r emai ni ng bal ance s houl d be pai d t o K ayl a. ¶ 6 8
. B e c a u se I w o u ld re v e rse a n d re n d e r th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c irc u it c o u rt, I re sp e c tfu lly d is s e n t. I S HEE , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.