Court Opinion

ID: 9680710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:37:06.428254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.046862
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Even though my sympathy lies with any widow attempting to recover pension funds, in my opinion the majority have not properly construed the statute in question.
The statute which preceded the one under scrutiny here had no provision requiring a widow to have been married prior to the member’s retirement. In 1967, upon adoption of the present law, the new requirement was added “prior ... to retirement.” If the Legislature did not intend the amended statute to mean that the widow had to marry the member before retirement, then the amendment had no purpose.
The majority states the word “or” between the words “death” and “retirement” allows the widow to recover if she was married to the member either before he retired or before his death. I do not follow the logic of such an argument. If that had been the intention of the Legislature, then it could have left the statute as it was before the amendment of 1967 and simply provided that the widow would recover if she was married to the member before his death.
A more reasonable construction of the statute, in my opinion, is that this section of the Pension Act is making provision for three separate categories: (1) A member who has retired and dies from any cause. (2) A member who is still active, although he has earned retirement and dies from any cause. (3) A member who is still active and not entitled to retirement and dies from a service-connected cause. The “prior to retirement” provision could not apply to categories (2) and (3) as the member has not retired. It could only apply to category (1) and that is the obvious reason for its inclusion in the statute.