Court Opinion

ID: 9724410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:55:43.704797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.079134
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court judgment that holds I.C. 5-10 — 5.5—10(b) is not ambiguous. The statute increases the annual retirement allowance by 1 2/3% for each completed year of creditable service more than 10 years and 1% for each completed year of creditable service more than 25 years. “And” means as well as or added to. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. The construction of a statute is necessary only where the statute is ambiguous. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870, 872 (Ind.1994).
It is also implausible to me, as the trial court stated in its judgment that the legislature would intend to “reduce the monthly allowance of its most experienced and senior officers by 2/3%.” Generally, police pensions should be liberally construed in favor of those entitled to be benefited thereby. See Schock v. Chappell, 231 Ind. 480, 481, 109 N.E.2d 423, 424 (1952).