Evelyn M. Wallis v. Office of Personnel Management
Docket: 93-3430
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; March 13, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) prohibits citing nonprecedential opinions as precedent but allows for issues of claim preclusion and similar doctrines to be asserted based on such opinions. Evelyn M. Wallis challenged a Merit Systems Protection Board decision affirming the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) denial of her survivor annuity claim under the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA) following her ex-husband Joseph W. Wallis's death. The Board found no legal errors, affirming that the denial was not arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence. Evelyn and Joseph Wallis divorced in 1980 after 17.5 years of marriage, during which Joseph was a Department of the Army employee. Their divorce decree stipulated that Evelyn would receive half of Joseph's vested retirement benefits. Upon retirement in 1990, Joseph opted for a lump-sum payment without survivor benefits, and although he paid Evelyn her share of retirement benefits post-retirement, he did not provide her with a survivor annuity. Evelyn applied for the survivor annuity on July 9, 1992, but OPM denied her claim on the grounds that the CSRA did not allow for entitlement to a former spouse's survivor annuity benefits if the marriage ended before May 7, 1985. The administrative judge upheld OPM's decision, which became the Board's final decision after Evelyn failed to seek further review. In her appeal, Evelyn argued she was entitled to benefits since Joseph should not have elected a lump-sum payment without providing for her as a living former spouse. However, the court clarified that the relevant statutory provisions only applied to marriages occurring after May 7, 1985, thus affirming OPM's denial of her claim. Ms. Wallis asserts that Mr. Wallis's election of a lump-sum benefit is invalid due to intentional falsehoods in his retirement application, specifically citing violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. The claim centers on Mr. Wallis's misleading answer regarding his former spouse's eligibility for a survivor annuity, where he incorrectly denied having a living former spouse divorced after May 7, 1985, despite their actual divorce occurring in 1980. The court emphasizes the importance of factual accuracy in legal filings, cautioning that submissions must be grounded in truth after reasonable inquiry. Although Mr. Wallis also incorrectly certified that no former spouse was entitled to a portion of his annuity, the court finds this misstatement harmless, as Ms. Wallis has not demonstrated that her entitlement to funds from the Office of Personnel Management would have been valid even if the statement had been accurate. The ruling is made by Honorable Richard Mills, a District Judge for the Central District of Illinois.