Opinion ID: 1040711
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Irrevocability

Text: As with the first three elements of detrimental reliance, the Board did not analyze whether Kathryn’s change in position was irrevocable. OPM argues to the court that, even if there was a change in position, Kathryn is not entitled to a waiver because she can pursue necessary relief in the Montana court by suing Diana for recovery of the transferred funds. Kathryn argues that her change in position is irrevocable because the Montana court entered a final judgment and dismissed the earlier litigation with prejudice (i.e., she is foreclosed from seeking relief from Diana). Under the OPM Overpayment Guidelines, an irrevo- cable position is a “change in position [that] cannot be reversed.” OPM Overpayment Guidelines § I.E.3. OPM claims that Kathryn’s loss can be reversed through additional litigation between Kathryn and Diana. We disagree. This case involves two women with a shared, exten- sive litigation history. After years of disputing the allocation of Don’s assets and sorting claims as to which woman qualified as the lawful widow, the 2008 Settlement Agreement fully settled all claims. Pursuant to Kathryn and Diana’s joint stipulation, the state court dismissed the action with prejudice. At oral argument, the parties acknowledged that, in order for Kathryn to seek the relief proposed by OPM, she would have to move under Rule 60(b) to set aside the settlement agreements and reopen the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). KING v. OPM 17 We have considered the uncertainty that would ac- company an attempt to obtain relief under Rule 60(b) under the circumstances and conclude that the transfer of funds is irreversible for purpose of detrimental reliance. It is improbable that the Montana court would grant a request to reopen the settled case. In addition, the parties would be encumbered with the burden and cost of litigating an issue that is unlikely to yield actual relief. The dismissal of the Montana action with prejudice and the execution of a settlement agreement intended to end all litigation between Kathryn and Diana render Kathryn’s change in position irreversible. Having established that the transferred survivor annuity funds cannot feasibly be recovered from Diana, Kathryn has satisfied the fourth detrimental reliance element.