Waterfall v. Retirement Board

2019 UT App 88
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
R EED S COTT W ATERFALL,
Petitioner,
v.
R ETIREMENT BOARD AND
U TAH R ETIREMENT S YSTEMS,
Respondents.
Opinion
No. 20180192-CA
Filed May 23, 2019
Original Proceeding in this Court
Michael V. Houtz and Keith M. Backman, Attorneys
for Petitioner
David B. Hansen and Erin G. Christensen, Attorneys
for Respondents
JUDGE K ATE A PPLEBY authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES R YAN M. HARRIS and DIANA HAGEN concurred.
APPLEBY, Judge:
¶1 	Reed 	Scott 	Waterfall 	seeks 	judicial 	review 	of 	Utah
Retirement Systems’ (URS) calculation of his benefits as a justice
court judge for South Ogden City (City) from 1992 to 2012. We
approve Utah State Retirement Board’s (Board) determination
that Waterfall was a part-time employee during the relevant
period.

Waterfall v. Retirement Board
20180192-CA 	2 	2019 UT App 88
BACKGROUND
¶2 	Waterfall was employed as a justice court judge in the
City from 1992 to 2012.1 In April 2012, the city director of finance
reported 	to 	URS 	that 	“Judge 	Waterfall 	has 	always 	been
part-time” while working for the City (2012 Report). Based on
this 	representation, 	URS 	planned 	on 	calculating 	Waterfall’s
retirement benefits based on his part-time employment status
with the City.
¶3 	Waterfall disputed the calculation of his benefits by filing
a request for board action in 2013. He argued that the part-time
determination 	was 	incorrect 	and 	he 	should 	have 	been
considered a full-time employee for the City. A hearing on the
issue was held in 2015. At the hearing, the hearing officer
considered the 2012 Report indicating Waterfall was part-time,
as well as a subsequent letter dated March 2015 (2015 Letter)
from the city manager (City Manager) indicating that Waterfall
actually worked full-time for the City. The hearing officer also
heard testimony from Waterfall on the issue. Based on the
evidence presented, the hearing officer issued findings of fact
and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	denying 	Waterfall’s 	request 	to 	be
considered 	a 	full-time 	employee 	for 	the 	City. 	The 	Board
approved the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by
the 	hearing 	officer 	and 	denied 	Waterfall’s 	petition 	for
reconsideration.
¶4 	In 	November 	2016, 	Waterfall 	notified 	URS 	that 	he
retired.2 Throughout 2016 and the beginning of 2017, Waterfall
communicated 	with 	URS 	regarding 	the 	calculation 	of 	his
retirement 	benefits. 	In 	2017, 	Waterfall 	filed 	his 	retirement
1. During his career, Waterfall was also employed as a justice
court judge in Roy City and other jurisdictions.
2. Waterfall stopped working for the City in 2012. The record is
unclear from where Waterfall retired in 2016.

Waterfall v. Retirement Board
20180192-CA 	3 	2019 UT App 88
application and attached the 2015 Letter, which stated he was a
full-time employee for the City. In response URS told Waterfall
that 	his 	benefit 	would 	be 	calculated 	based 	on 	the 	Board’s
determination that he was a part-time employee. Waterfall then
provided URS with a second letter dated January 2017 (2017
Letter), again signed by City Manager, “reaffirming” Waterfall
was a full-time employee for the City during the relevant period.
¶5 	URS 	was 	unsure 	how 	to 	interpret 	the 	conflicting
information regarding Waterfall’s employment status and asked
the city attorney (City Attorney) for a response. City Attorney
notified URS that the City’s position was that the 2015 and 2017
letters from City Manager “should be withdrawn” and the 2012
Report 	should 	“be 	deemed 	the 	official 	response 	as 	to 	Mr.
Waterfall’s 	employment 	status.” 	Based 	on 	City 	Attorney’s
response and its own previous determination after a hearing that
Waterfall 	worked 	part-time 	for 	the 	City, 	URS 	calculated
Waterfall’s retirement benefits based on part-time employment.
¶6 	In October 2017, Waterfall filed a second request for board
action challenging URS’s calculation of his benefits based on this
part-time 	employment 	certification. 	URS 	filed 	a 	motion 	to
dismiss arguing that res judicata barred Waterfall’s claim and
that he failed to establish he was a full-time employee. URS
argued Waterfall could not be considered full-time because City
Attorney’s letter indicated he was part-time and withdrew prior
letters indicating he was full-time. The hearing officer granted
the motion to dismiss. The Board affirmed the dismissal of
Waterfall’s petition.
¶7 	Waterfall seeks judicial review of the Board’s dismissal of
his petition.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 	The issue under review is whether the Board properly
granted URS’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Waterfall

Waterfall v. Retirement Board
20180192-CA 	4 	2019 UT App 88
did not meet the statutory requirements to be considered a
full-time employee of the City during the relevant period.3 On
“review of an agency’s formal adjudicative proceedings, we treat
the Board’s dismissal of [Waterfall’s] petition as analogous to a
court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to a . . . motion for
failure to state a claim” under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of
Civil Procedure. Adkins v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 926 P.2d
880, 882 (Utah 1996) (quotation simplified). “Therefore, we grant
no particular deference to the Board’s legal conclusions.” Id.
(quotation simplified). “[W]e accept all facts alleged as true, and
indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party.” O’Hearon v. Hansen, 2017 UT App 214, ¶ 10, 409 P.3d 85
(quotation simplified).
¶9 	This case requires us to review the Board’s application of
relevant statutes in the Utah State Retirement and Insurance
Benefit 	Act. 	See 	Utah 	Code 	Ann. 	§§ 	49-11-101 	to 	-23-601
(LexisNexis 	2015). 	“We 	review 	the 	Board’s 	application 	or
interpretation 	of 	a 	statute 	as 	a 	question 	of 	law 	under 	the
correction-of-error standard.” Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Board,
2008 UT App 282, ¶ 10, 191 P.3d 814 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
¶10 	Waterfall 	argues 	his 	petition 	should 	not 	have 	been
dismissed because the City considered him a full-time employee
at the time of his retirement and URS had no authority to change
the certification. He contends URS was required to accept the
2015 Letter as the final certification from the City regarding his
employment status.
3. 	Waterfall 	also 	argues his petition 	should 	not 	have 	been
dismissed under res judicata. We do not reach this issue because
we approve the Board’s decision to dismiss Waterfall’s petition
on the alternative ground that he did not meet the statutory
requirements to be considered a full-time employee.

Waterfall v. Retirement Board
20180192-CA 	5 	2019 UT App 88
¶11 	Utah Code section 49-13-406 provides, “A justice court
judge 	who 	has 	service 	with 	more 	than 	one 	participating
employer shall be considered full-time by the office for a period
of service in which the judge is certified as full-time by: (i) a
participating employer; or (ii) the Administrative Office of the
Courts . . . .” Utah Code Ann. § 49-13-406(3)(a) (LexisNexis
2015).4 Waterfall argues that the word “shall” in the statute binds
URS 	to 	accept 	the 	2015 	Letter 	as 	the 	certification 	of 	his
employment status for the City. He contends the 2017 Letter
from City Attorney is irrelevant because URS received the letter
after his retirement date. URS argues Waterfall lacks proper
certification 	of 	full-time 	employment 	because 	City 	Attorney
withdrew City Manager’s letters indicating he was a full-time
employee.
¶12 	Utah Code section 49-11-607 addresses the problem that
arises 	when 	there 	are 	errors 	or 	disputes 	in 	an 	employee’s
records. After an employee retires, alterations, additions, and
cancellations 	of 	benefits 	are 	not 	allowed 	except 	under 	the
following circumstances: (1) if there are “[e]rrors in the records
or in the calculations of the office which result in an incorrect
benefit to any member,” (2) if there are “[e]rrors in the records or
calculation 	of 	a 	participating 	employer 	which 	result 	in 	an
incorrect benefit to a member,” or (3) “[i]f a dispute exists
between a participating employer and a member at the time of
the member’s retirement.” Id. § 49-11-607(1)–(4).
¶13 	In this case, URS was presented with conflicting reports
about Waterfall’s employment status. Under section 49-11-607,
4. The statute does not make clear who is authorized to speak for
the judge’s “employer.” It also does not articulate guidelines for
what constitutes full-time and part-time employment. It may be
advisable for the legislature to specify exactly who is authorized
to speak for a justice court judge’s municipal employer in this
context, and to set out clear guidelines for what constitutes
full-time and part-time employment.

Waterfall v. Retirement Board
20180192-CA 	6 	2019 UT App 88
URS 	may 	fix 	errors 	in, 	and 	resolve 	disputes 	about, 	the
calculation of benefits even after an employee retires. That is
what happened here. After URS contacted the City regarding the
conflicting reports, City Attorney responded and said the City’s
official response was that Waterfall was a part-time employee.
URS was thus able to correct the error and resolve the dispute
over whether Waterfall was a part-time or full-time employee.
¶14 	Waterfall relies on Gottfredson v. Utah State Retirement
Board to support his position that benefits are fixed at retirement
and cannot be changed after that date. 808 P.2d 153 (Utah Ct.
App. 	1991). 	In 	Gottfredson, 	the 	petitioner 	filed 	a 	retirement
application, 	then 	after 	his 	established 	retirement 	date 	had
passed, he learned about pending legislation that would increase
his benefit and tried to rescind his application. Id. at 154. This
court 	determined 	the 	Board 	properly 	refused 	his 	request
because, after the established retirement date had passed, “no
alteration, addition, or cancellation of [his] benefits could be
made.” Id. at 155 (citing the relevant provisions of the Utah
Code). 	But 	our 	decision 	in 	Gottfredson 	does 	not 	support
Waterfall’s position in this case. Again, while it is generally true
that 	an 	employee’s 	benefits 	become 	fixed 	at 	the 	time 	of
retirement, URS retains the ability to ensure the benefit is correct
under the exceptions listed in Utah Code section 49-11-607. We
approve the Board’s dismissal of Waterfall’s second request for
board action.
CONCLUSION
¶15 	The 	Board 	properly 	dismissed 	Waterfall’s 	petition
because URS had the ability to correct City Manger’s error and
resolve the dispute regarding whether he was a part-time or
full-time 	employee. 	We 	therefore 	decline 	to 	disturb 	URS’s
calculation of his benefits, or its decision to treat Waterfall as a
part-time employee.