Opinion ID: 1156349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violation of West Virginia Constitution

Text: The West Virginia Constitution, Art. VIII, § 7, provides that the compensation of judges and justices shall be fixed as any other law, that is, by the legislature. [6] In re Dostert attempts to fix the compensation of judges by Court opinion and not by law. [7] This Court, in syllabus point 8 of In re Dostert, states: West Virginia Retirement System for judges creates contractual vested property rights for retired and active participating plan members, and these rights are enforceable and cannot be impaired or diminished by the State, citing syllabus point 1, Wagoner v. Gainer . [8] Wagoner, however, was based on statutes enacted by the legislature. It cannot be cited as authority for vesting contractual rights in judges based on rights created by Court opinions such as Dostert and DePond. The pension, being part of the salary of a justice and judge, must be fixed by the legislature. Even a cursory reading of In re Dostert reveals that the judicial pension system was redrafted by Court opinion and not fixed by law. The fact that In re Dostert fixed compensation (retirement benefits) by opinion and not by law makes the benefits derived therefrom unconstitutional. [9] The benefits, therefore, are not a contractual right binding on later courts that might have the matter again brought to their attention. The Dostert opinion is fatally flawed because it is based on an unconstitutional premise, and those who take from the poison tree may find at a later date, in a decision by another court, that they in fact do not have any vested rights and do not qualify for a judicial pension under the terms and conditions set out by Dostert.