Court Opinion

ID: 9847860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:08:54.745694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:39.621376
License: Public Domain

PIERCE, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority’s interpretation effects a retroactive application of the amendment in violation of Colo.Const. Art. II, sec. 11.
Taylor v. PERA, 189 Colo. 486, 542 P.2d 383 (1975), is distinguishable. The amendment there did not create new obligations for PERA since Taylor paid back all of the previously withdrawn funds, plus interest. “The rights and obligations of each side remain[ed] in balance.” Taylor, supra. Here, on the other hand, the majority’s application of the statute forces PERA to pay an increased amount of benefits to Judge Stewart without any corresponding contribution on his part. This creates a new obligation for PERA, and therefore results in a retroactive application of the amendment.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.