Opinion ID: 1259865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: interest on judicial pensioners' claims

Text: (15) Defendants contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to interest on the increases in judicial pensions mandated by Olson v. Cory I because those pensions were and are payable entirely out of the Judges' Retirement Fund (Gov. Code, § 75100). They rely on Jorgensen v. Cranston (1962) 211 Cal. App.2d 292 [27 Cal. Rptr. 297], and Willens v. Cory (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 104 [125 Cal. Rptr. 670], holding that the right to interest against the state or its subdivisions under Civil Code section 3287 does not apply to claims against public retirement funds [such as the Judges' Retirement Fund] reasonably challenged by the State Controller ( Jorgensen, 211 Cal. App.2d at p. 302, quoted and followed in Willens, 53 Cal. App.3d at p. 106). A legislative intent to exclude such claims from Civil Code section 3287 was inferred from the perceived duty of the Controller, as trustee of the Judges' Retirement Fund, to resolve any doubts about claims against the fund before making payment (citing Rest.2d Trusts, § 207, com. c, at p. 470). [4] This court, however, has not adopted any such special-fund exception to the right of interest under Civil Code section 3287. In Benson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.2d 355, 365, we simply distinguished Jorgensen as inapplicable to salary or pension obligations payable out of the public debtor's general fund by observing that the judges' retirement fund is a special trust fund and as such may not fall within the meaning of section 3287 (italics added). In Mass v. Board of Education, supra, 61 Cal.2d 612, we upheld a claim for interest on wrongfully withheld salary since it involves recovery upon a general underlying monetary obligation ( id. at p. 626) and noted that Jorgensen and other cases may be distinguished on the narrow ground that they involved mandamus actions against a trustee of a special fund. ( Id. at p. 625, fn. 8.) Recoverability of interest on judicial pension claims under Civil Code section 3287 was thus left an open question in this court. Nothing in the wording of Civil Code section 3287 suggests that the right to recover interest from the state varies in accordance with the particular fund out of which the underlying obligation was payable. As explained, we have concluded that even the right to interest on salary increases payable out of the state's general fund is not nullified or diminished by any obligation that the Controller may have to refrain from paying apparent debts of the state that are clouded by legal uncertainties until those uncertainties are removed. Thus, the existence of such an obligation with respect to the Judges' Retirement Fund, relied on in Jorgensen, does not establish any difference between the right to interest on debts payable out of that fund and the right to interest on debts payable out of the state's general fund. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to interest on judicial pension payments adjudged in Olson v. Cory I. Statements to the contrary in Jorgensen v. Cranston, supra, 211 Cal. App.2d 292, 300-302, Willens v. Cory, supra, 53 Cal. App.3d 104, and Gibbons & Reed Co. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1963) 220 Cal. App.2d 277, 289 [33 Cal. Rptr. 688], are disapproved.