Missouri State Employees Retirement System v. Raymond E. Salva, Sr.

Citations: 504 S.W.3d 748; 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 859Docket: WD79289

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; August 30, 2016; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Raymond E. Salva, Sr. appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) concerning the recovery of retirement benefits he received. The case stems from Salva's service in the Missouri General Assembly from January 2003 to December 2010, during which he vested in the retirement plan in January 2009 and began receiving benefits in January 2011. Following his guilty plea in June 2013 for felony theft of government funds, Salva was found to have improperly received Social Security disability benefits from January 2003 to February 2008. Consequently, MOSERS terminated his retirement benefits, invoking a disqualification provision from the Missouri Constitution and demanded repayment of $29,929.20 in benefits paid between January 2011 and June 2013. Salva's appeal to the MOSERS Board was denied, leading to MOSERS filing for recovery of the funds. 

In the trial court, both parties moved for summary judgment, with the court granting MOSERS's motion and denying Salva's. The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying the same criteria as the trial court. Salva raises three points on appeal, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the constitutional provision essential to MOSERS's claim and that the claim improperly applied Missouri law retrospectively. The court notes that a suit for money had and received is based on equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment, requiring proof that Salva received MOSERS's money, benefited from it, and that retention of the funds was unjust. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding MOSERS entitled to recover the benefits as a matter of law.

Salva argues that he is unjustly disqualified from receiving retirement benefits under Missouri's article XIII, section 3.12 because he was not convicted of a felony while serving in office, having pleaded guilty to theft of government property nearly two and a half years post-retirement. The constitutional amendment, effective January 1, 2007, disqualifies any public official convicted of a felony occurring while in office from receiving state pensions. The court applies broader rules of construction to constitutional provisions, interpreting them based on the common understanding of the language at the time of adoption. The provision’s relevant language specifies that disqualification applies to any public official convicted of a felony that occurred while in office. Salva's argument that the disqualification only applies to active officials misinterprets the provision, as it is the occurrence of the felony, not the conviction, that is critical. The phrase "which occurred while in office" directly modifies "felony," indicating that the felony itself must have happened during the official's term. Under the last antecedent rule, qualifiers apply to the nearest antecedent, confirming that the focus is on the felony's occurrence. The court emphasizes that clear and plain language in statutes or constitutional provisions cannot be rewritten to discern intent. Salva’s interpretation, which would allow officials to commit felonies and still receive benefits if they resigned before conviction, is deemed unreasonable and leads to absurd outcomes, which the court aims to avoid in statutory construction.

Salva contends that the historical context of Article XIII, section 3.12—including bill summaries and plain language explanations—indicates that the provision was not intended to disqualify him from retirement benefits, as he was not convicted of a felony while in office. The court finds the provision unambiguous and asserts it must confine its review to the text in context, disregarding extrinsic evidence. Even when considering historical context, the official ballot title and fair ballot language align with the provision's text, clarifying its intent to require forfeiture of state pensions upon felony conviction or misconduct. 

Salva lacked a vested right to retirement benefits since he had only served two biennial assemblies by the provision’s effective date, failing to meet the three biennial assemblies requirement under section 104.1084, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. His expectation of future eligibility did not constitute a vested right. Furthermore, the provision did not retroactively impose new obligations on him regarding past actions. Salva’s felony was committed while he was in office after the enactment of section 3.12, as he admitted to receiving unentitled Social Security disability benefits between 2003 and 2008, including checks after the provision's effective date. Thus, the application of Article XIII, section 3.12 to Salva does not violate the Missouri Constitution. The court affirms the trial court's summary judgment.