Opinion ID: 2306415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Subsequent Administrative Action and Appeals

Text: [¶ 10] After the enactment of L.D. 1850, Sharon requested that the MSRS pay her benefits pursuant to the QDRO and the newly amended statutes. The Executive Director of the MSRS denied Sharon's request, concluding that the retirement benefits were properly being paid to Joanne. Sharon appealed this decision to the MSRS's Board of Trustees. Prior to the hearing, the MSRS notified Joanne that her rights might be affected by the appeal, and she was subsequently granted leave to intervene. [¶ 11] A hearing on Sharon's administrative appeal took place before a hearing officer, who recommended in a report that the decision of the Executive Director be overturned. However, the Board ultimately rejected the hearing officer's recommendation and affirmed the Executive Director's determination. In its decision, the Board noted that the QDRO contained specific provisions that directed that it be interpreted in accordance with MSRS statutes and regulations. The Board also noted that 5 M.R.S. § 17852(5)(B) grants the `surviving spouse' of a retired game warden the benefits both Sharon and Joanne claim[, and that w]hen, as was the case with John McPhee, the retired game warden was divorced subsequent to retirement, `surviving spouse' means `the person legally married to the officer at the time of the officer's death.' In addition, the Board found support in its own rules that provide that when a QDRO is entered subsequent to a member's retirement, the benefit amount to be paid to the survivor will be that required under the option elected by the retiree at retirement, as though no qualified domestic relations order had existed. 12 C.M.R. 94 411 103-7 § 15(B)(1) (1994). [¶ 12] The Board reasoned further that the statutory amendments resulting from L.D. 1850 did not control its decision because the statute governing benefits awarded to the surviving spouse of an Inland Fisheries and Wildlife officer, 5 M.R.S. § 17852(5)(B), was more specific. [7] The Board also concluded that even if the amendments enacted by L.D. 1850 applied to the case, Sharon could not prevail because there was no statutory authority for transferring the interest of a deceased officer's surviving spouse to another person at the time the QDRO was approved in 1994. Thus, the Board held that the QDRO could not transfer the spousal benefits to anyone other than the person to whom [the retiree] would be legally married at the time of his death. Overall, the Board concluded that it would be absurd to construe the amended statutes so that the agreement of signatories to a QDRO supercedes whatever else may be required by statute, rule or case law. [¶ 13] Sharon appealed the decision to the Superior Court. The court vacated the Board's decision, concluding that the amendments enacted by L.D. 1850 were clear in their directive to give effect to the plain meaning of a QDRO, and that, contrary to the Board's reasoning, the newly amended statutes could be read harmoniously with existing MSRS laws. It concluded that the amended statutes plainly contemplate[d] that Sharon should be the survivor beneficiary of John's benefits. The MSRS's motion for reconsideration was denied. Both Joanne and the MSRS appeal from this decision.