TRA-88-002-PE

                                                       4-3700-1698-2

 

 

                                STATE OF MINNESOTA

                        OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

                FOR THE MINNESOTA TEACHERS RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

 

 

Elwin Leverington,

 

                     Plaintiff,                            FINDINGS  QF  FACT,

                                                           CONCLUSIONS AND

V.                                                         RECOMMENDATION

 

Teachers Retirement Association,

 

                     Defendant.

 

 

    The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law

Judge Peter C. Erickson at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1987, in the Office

of the Teachers Retirement Association, Suite 500,  Gallery  Building,  17  West

Exchange Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.  The transcript on this matter was filed

on August 7, 1987, at which time the record was closed pursuant to the

stipulation of both parties.

 

    Elwin Leverington, Route 2, Roseau, Minnesota 56751, the Petitioner

herein, appeared and testified on his own behalf.  Merwin Peterson, Assistant

Attorney General, 1100 Bremer Tower, Seventh Place  and  Minnesota  Street,  St.

Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared on behalf of the Teachers Retirement

Association.

 

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Minn.  Stat.    14.61  the  final

decision of the Teachers Retirement Association shall not  be  made  until  this

Report has been made available to the parties to the  proceeding  for  at  least

ten days, and an opportunity has been afforded to each party adversely

affected to file exceptions and present argument to the Association.

Exceptions to this Report, if any, shall be filed with Elton Erdahl, Executive

Director, Teachers Retirement Association, Suite 500, Gallery Building,

17 West Exchange Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102.

 

                                STATEMENT OF ISSUE

 

    The purpose of this hearing is to determine the date on which Mr.

Leverington mailed his application for retirement  to  the  Teachers  Retirement

Association pursuant to 1987 Laws, ch. 372, art. 7,  2.

 

    Based upon all of the proceedings herein,  the  Administrative  Law  Judge

makes the following:

 

                                 FINDINGS OF FACT

 

    1.   Elwin Leverington, a resident of  Roseau,  Minnesota,  retired  after

32 years of teaching on June 30, 1982.  Prior  to  that  retirement  date,  Mr.

 


Leverington was informed by the Teachers Retirement Association that he could

"buy back" one year of service for the amount of $7,080.70 if that payment  was

made by June 30, 1982.  Mr. Leverington mailed a check by certified  mail  for

that amount made payable on June 30, 1982 to the Association on June  28,

1982.  The Association received the check on July 1, 1982 and issued  a  receipt

bearing that date.'

 

    2.   Mr. Leverington's "Application for Retirement Annuity" is  dated

July 1, 1982 and was mailed in an envelope bearing a July 1, p.m. postmark.

The return addressee on the envelope was the North Star Vocational  Cooperative

Center in Roseau.  The envelope also contained an "Affidavit of School

Authorities" and a letter from ISD No. 682 concerning Mr. Leverington's

earnings as a bus driver which was dated June 29, 1982.  The Application, the

Affidavit of School Authorities, and the June 29 letter are all stamped

received on July 6, 1982 by the Teachers Retirement Association.

 

    3.   The Judge specifically finds that Mr. Leverington mailed the

Application for Retirement on July 1, 1982.

 

    4.   Mail normally takes three days to get to an addressee in the Twin

Cities from Roseau.

 

    Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge

makes the following:

 

                                   CONCLUSIONS

 

    1.   The Administrative Law Judge and the Teachers Retirement Association

have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 1987 Laws, ch. 372, art. 7,   2

and Minn.  Stat.  14.50 (1986).  The Notice and Order for Hearing  was  proper

in all respects as to form and content.

 

    2.   Mr. Leverington, the Petitioner herein, has the burden to prove  the

mailing date of the Application for Retirement by a preponderance of  the

evidence.

 

    3.   As the Findings of Fact above show, the Judge has found that Mr.

Leverington's Application for Retirement was mailed to the Teachers  Retirement

Association on July 1, 1982.

 

    4.   The Conclusions above are made for the reasons set forth in  the

Memorandum below which is incorporated by reference herein.

 

    Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge  makes

the following:

 

 

 

    I  July 1, 1982 was a Thursday.  Consequently, the holiday, July 4,  was  on

a Sunday.  The Association's office was closed on Monday, July 5, 1982.

 

                                       -2-

 


                                 RECOMMENDATION

 

    IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Teachers Retirement Association find

that Mr. Leverington's Application for Retirement was mailed on July  1,  1982.

 

Dated this 11th day of August, 1987.

 

 

 

 

                                          PETER C. ERICKSON

                                         Administrative Law Judge

 

 

                                     NOTICE

 

    Pursuant to Minn.  Stat.  14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required  to  serve

its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first

class mail.

 

Reported:  Taped, Transcript Prepared by Jeffrey J. Watczak.

 

 

                                   MEMORANDUM

 

    It is not completely clear that the Legislature intended that  the  Teachers

Retirement Association make the final decision in this matter concerning the

"Finding of Fact" regarding the mailing date of the Application for

Retirement.  The authorizing statute states that  Mr.  Leverington's  retirement

benefits will be changed "if the administrative hearing  . . .  results in a

finding of fact that the annuitant  . . .  mailed the application for  retirement

to the Teachers Retirement Association on or before June 30, 1982."  The

statutory language does not refer to a "final decision" by the Teachers

Retirement Association; rather, it refers to a "finding of fact".  This

language might be interpreted to mean that the Administrative Law Judge's

"Finding" is the final decision in this matter.  However, because the

Legislature directed the Teachers Retirement Association to initiate an

"  administrative hearin  g"  pursuant to chapter 14, and initiating  agencies  have

final decisionmaking power unless specifically provided otherwise, the Judge

has determined that the Association has final decisionmaking authority  in  this

matter.

 

    Mr. Leverington contends that:  (1) he mailed the Application for

Retirement with his "buy back" check which was received by the  Association  on

July 1, 1982; or (2) the envelope postmarked July I was placed in the  mail  at

the post office on June 30, 1982 but not processed until the next day.  The

record in this matter does not support Mr. Leverington's first argument,

however.  In order for the Association to receive the Application for

Retirement on July 1, it would have to have been mailed on June 28,  1982  with

the "buy back" check.  Mr. Leverington has asserted on many  occasions  that  the

Application was completed on June 30, 1982.  Additionally,  the  Application  is

stamped as received on July 6, 1982, the first work-day after the July 4

holiday.  There is no explanation as to why the Application would have sat,

unstamped, in the Association's office from July I until July 6 if it had

 

 

                                       -3-

 


been received along with the check on July 1, 1982.  Thus, the Judge does not

accept Mr. Leverington's first argument that the Application was mailed and

received with the buy back check.

 

    Secondly, Mr. Leverington contends that his Application was placed in the

mail along with the other documents contained in the envelope postmarked

July I late in the day on June 30, 1982.  There is a critical flaw to that

argument, however.  The postmark on the envelope shows a July 1, 1982, p.m.

stamp.  If the envelope had been placed in the mail late in the day on

June 30, it would have been processed the morning of July I and had an a.m.

stamp, not a p.m. stamp.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that

letters mailed after 5:00 p.m. receive a p.m. postmark with the following

day's date,

 

    Because Mr. Leverington is a petitioner for benefits, the Judge has placed

the ourden on him to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his

Application for Retirement was mailed on or before June 30, 1982.  This burden

has not been met by Mr. Leverington.  Consequently, the Judge has made the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation set forth above.

 

                                     P.C.E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                      -4-