Barnett v. Brizee

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 1968 No. Civ. 24168Published

Before: Taylor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Oakland City Charter does not authorize the city to reduce a widow's pension allowance by the amount of workmen's compensation benefits awarded to her minor child. Ambiguities in pension provisions must be construed in favor of the pensioner to prevent the deduction of benefits awarded to separate individuals.

Issues

Whether the Oakland City Charter permits the city to deduct workmen's compensation death benefits awarded to a minor child from the pension allowance of the deceased employee's widow.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The word “cumulative,” as used in the first sentence of this section, is ambiguous.”

“Under the rule of liberal construction of pension provisions, these ambiguities must be resolved in favor of Mrs. Barnett.”

“We think the trial court correctly held that Lyons v. Hoover supra, precluded the deduction of Ronald’s workmen’s compensation award from the pension portion of Mrs. Barnett’s allowance.”

TAYLOR, J.

The City of Oakland (hereafter Oakland) and its auditor-controller (hereafter controller) appeal from a judgment declaring that respondent Marie Belle Barnett (hereafter Mrs. Barnett), the widow of a retired fireman, was entitled to a retirement allowance without the deduction of the amount of the workmen’s compensation death benefits award made to her minor child, respondent, Ronald Barnett (hereafter Ronald), and directing the issuance of a writ of mandate commanding such payments.

The facts are stipulated. Mrs. Barnett’s huband, Robert (hereafter decedent), a member of the Oakland Fire Department since 1924, retired on a disability pension in 1960. After his death in 1964, the Oakland Retirement Board found that his death was industrially caused and granted Mrs. Barnett a monthly retirement allowance pursuant to section 244(3) of the Oakland Charter (discussedbelow).

In November 1964 Mrs. Barnett and Ronald each filed a claim for workmen’s compensation death benefits. In 1965, her claim was denied as barred by the statute of limitations, but Ronald was granted the maximum statutory death benefit of $20,500 (Lab. Code, § 4702). Oakland paid this amount by depositing the funds in a special trusteeship account for Ronald and was informed by the city attorney that the pension portion of Mrs. Barnett’s retirement allowance had to be reduced by the amount of Ronald’s workmen’s compensation award pursuant to section 249(2) of the Charter. Thereafter, the Oakland Retirement Board by a tie vote failed to pass a resolution making such reduction but the controller refused to pay Mrs. Barnett the full amount of her pension. This action for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate ensued. The parties agreed that the question of the propriety of the deduction would be submitted and determined separately from the issues relating to the correct method of computing the deduction. The trial court entered judgment in favor of respondents and issued a writ of mandate directing the pajunent of the full amount of the pension without the deduction for the award to Ronald.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court, as indicated in its memorandum opinion,

[99]

properly concluded that

Barnett v. Brizee

AI Brief

TAYLOR, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief