Opinion ID: 328218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: equities of retroactive relief and interest

Text: 34 The Trustees request that we limit the district courts' orders granting pension benefits retroactive to the month following the date of denial of each qualifying class member's application to the one year period provided in the Blankenship settlement or to the period following the August 14, 1970, decision in Roark II. They urge that such limitations are necessitated by the equities in favor of the Fund's other beneficiaries. 55 35 We conclude that the Pete and Kiser miners who have performed substantial contributory employment were prevented from obtaining pensions by illegally treating an eligibility requirement (signatory last year employment provision) as exclusive. In equity, they should have been placed on the pension rolls at the time their applications were denied. It is a maxim of equity to treat as done that which should have been done a maxim whose vigor is underscored by the doctrine of constructive trusts and like principles. Plaintiffs in Roark II and its progeny have consistently been granted full retroactive benefits. 56 We therefore affirm the portions of the district courts' orders granting pension benefits retroactive to the month following the date of denial of each qualifying class member's application. 36 Similar considerations of equity govern the provision of interest which is given in response to considerations of fairness (and) is denied when its exaction would be inequitable. 57 The equities in the present case argue persuasively for the provision of interest on retroactive payments to those miners with substantial contributory service. Those plaintiffs have long been denied pension benefits designed to cushion the hardship of their retirement years. Interest would serve to recompense these deserving plaintiffs without prejudicing the other pensioners, since the Fund has had the opportunity to earn a return on the wrongfully withheld payments. 37 As a general matter the denial of interest by a district court will not be overturned except in cases of abuse of discretion. 58 Here, however, the district courts did not weigh the equities in reaching their determinations. The Pete court merely announced without explanation that no interest would be granted 59 and the Kiser court felt compelled to reach a similar result because the plaintiffs' claims were not liquidated sums due and payable at the dates of pension denial. 60 The district court opinions evince a firm belief that the equities favor the qualifying miners. The Pete court stressed that (h)ad the Trustees not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, these retired miners would have over the years been receiving their pensions. 61 And the Kiser opinion concluded that the equities in this matter are clearly with the plaintiffs (since) (t)hey have been without any form of relief for several years. 62 These assessments undercut the denials of interest payments and underscore the fairness of incorporating such benefits in the relief accorded qualifying plaintiffs. C. 38 We need not consider what would be the consequence of a showing that either retroactive relief or the provision of interest would threaten the solvency of the Fund for no such showing has been made. 63 Solvency is not in itself a basis for permitting an award, but when a trustee raises an issue of solvency to dilute or undercut an award that the court finds basically meritorious, he has the burden of showing such a detriment to the public interest. 39 We affirm the grant of prospective and retroactive relief to plaintiffs with five years or more signatory service and remand the interest claim with instructions to award these plaintiffs interest at six percent per annum 64 on accrued pension payments from the dates on which those payments fell due through the date on which the judgment in this case is satisfied. 40 So ordered.