Court Opinion

ID: 9550837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:11.70413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:31.866690
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting. It has been said that public polioy is the time worn friend of appellate judges in a quandary. This court’s duty in this case should be limited to construing the statute (K. S. A. 74-4923) and not to declaring public policy. It is the duty of courts to interpret a law as they find it expressed by the legislature without reference to whether its provisions constitute good or sound public policy. Where the legislative purpose has been declared in plain and unmistakable language, it is not within the province of the court to inteipose contrary views of what the public need demands. If public welfare demands some exception or change in the law, it is to be effected by the legislature, and not by the courts in the guise of interpretation.
Mr. Chief Justice Johnston expressed this view in McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kan. 533, 84 Pac. 112, when he said:
“. . . .The right to determine what is the best policy for the people is in the legislature, and courts cannot assume that they have a wisdom superior to that of the legislature and proceed to inject into a statute a clause which, in their opinion, would be more in consonance with good morals or better accomplish justice than the rule declared by the legislature. It has been said that ‘the well-considered cases warrant the pertinent conclusion that when the legislature, not transcending the limits of its power, speaks in clear language upon a question of policy, it becomes the judicial tribunals to remain silent.’ (Malinda Deem et al. v. Thomas Millikin et al., 6 Ohio C. C. 357, 360.)” (p. 536.)
If an exception is to be engrafted onto the clear statutory exemp*353tion from “process or claim whatsoever” it should be done by the legislature, not this court. This exception will have the effect of subjecting the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System to extensive litigation. The System will be brought into every divorce action which involves a public employee of the state with future retirement benefits, and when such an employee retires from service such benefits will be subjected to continuing claims for alimony and support, of minor children. When such claims exceed the monthly benefit to be paid a retirant he may find himself without any funds to live on unless the court applies some limit to the amount which can be reached.
I would construe the statute as written and reverse the trial courts judgment.
Schroeder, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.