Opinion ID: 6108934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the Pension System Seeking Retrospective Relief?

Text: The City next challenges the holding of the court of appeals that the Pension System sought prospective, not retrospective relief. See Heinrich , 284 S.W.3d at 374 (stating that retrospective monetary claims are generally barred by immunity). As the City points out, the System did not specifically allege in its petition whether it seeks relief for past periods, future periods, or both. In its conclusion and prayer in its pleadings, the System requested it be awarded [a] writ of mandamus compelling [the City] to allocate funding in the current City budget to provide the statutorily required payments of 27.36% of the payroll of the [corporations'] employees, to make such payments to [the Pension System] in accordance with the allocation, to include in all future proposed City budgets the contributions owed for [the corporations'] employees' salaries as members of [the Pension System], and to pick up and pay any biweekly contributions made on their behalf. The City argues the Pension System's pleadings are broad enough to be construed as requesting both payments and allocations of amounts allegedly owed for past periods, which would necessarily include all past periods before the then-current fiscal year. The System responds that it is seeking payments for what it is owed on the date of judgment and in the future. Under Heinrich , prospective relief is permissible so that statutes specifically directing payment can be judicially enforced going forward. 284 S.W.3d at 376 . Further, we construe pleadings liberally to determine whether the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 226 . Construing the pleadings liberally, the Pension System asks for the statute to be enforced going forward and thus is seeking prospective relief.  6. Are the Pension System's Claims Moot? The City argues that jurisdiction has been lost, if it ever existed, because the System's claims are now moot due to 2017 amendments to Article 6243h. One of the amendments brought the City's unfunded liability current to July 1, 2016. See TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. art. 6243h, §§ 1(11-g), 8. Under the amendments, any unfunded actuarial accrued liability for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, or for each subsequent year is treated as part of the City's legacy liability. Id. § 1(11-g). The amendments provide that the legacy liability is to be amortized over a thirty-year period. Id. § 8. Also under the amendments, the City is no longer permitted under an MCA to pay a lower contribution rate than the one found in the statute. Id. § 3(o)(4). The City first argues that all payments for periods before the amendment's effective date constitute retrospective relief. However, as explained above, we disagree that the Pension System seeks retrospective relief by asking that the City be directed to comply with its current obligations and seeking that the statute be enforced as of the date of judgment. The City next argues that the Pension System's suit is moot because any payments for future periods based on the contribution rate found in the MCA are barred because the statute prohibits the parties from altering the statutory contribution rate. Although the City may be correct that the amendments no longer allow a lower contribution rate under an MCA, as we held above, the Pension System is entitled to sue to enforce the statute for the City's failure to make contributions under article 6243h. The amended statute still provides that the City  shall make contributions to the pension system, id. § 8A(a) (emphasis added), so the City is still required to make payments under the statute regardless of whether a lower contribution rate under the MCA is barred. The City has not claimed that it has made any pension system contributions for the corporations' personnel, which is what the Pension System is seeking in its suit. We therefore conclude that the case is not moot.