Shared Materials Library

This was a claim letter arguing that client should be paid a retroactive lump sum, and not have her benefit adjusted actuarially, due to a benefit start date after Normal Retirement Age. We argued that the actuarial adjustment could constitute a forfeiture. Argument was successful.

Plan was not properly crediting client's service. Plan used "elapsed time" method for counting years of service. Under this method, if client leaves work due to a temporary situation, e.g. disability or layoff, plan is required to give client additional one year credit from last date employed.

Client's DB pension plan terminated as a standard termination and annuities were purchased with John Hancock. All plan documents indicated that cNormal retirement Age for unreduced benefit was age 62. When the insurance company issued the annuity certificate, it mis-stated the NRA as age 65, which caused client to delay applying until he turned 65. When he found documents indicating heis benefit should have started at age 62, the insurer told him it wouldn't pay retro because he had failed to apply at age 62. We filed a claim alleging that insurer's actions constituted a forfeiture, and that John Hancock would be unjustly enriched by the failure to pay benefits back to the age 62 start date.

This appeal was filed because our client, who had been receiving survivor's benefits for 23 years, was notified by the plan that a recent review determined that her late husband had never been vested and her benefits were being stopped. We challenged the plan's determination and lack of evidence to reverse previous decision. The plan reinststed her benefit.

Successful claim for benefits seeking waiver of recoupment based on IRS Revenue Procedure 2013-12 and 2 DOL Advisory Opinions regarding when a recoupment action is or is not prudent and/or reasonable. Letter also discusses hardship and plan's breach of fiduciary duty.

To help PCIP staff obtain important demographic information, PRC has created this sample intake questionnaire that can be sent to clients along with engagement forms.

This is a sample letter to be sent to the PBGC when a client has been omitted from a standard termination. The letter needs to argue and provide proof that: the client was vested; the client did not receive lump sum distribution at time of termination; and that no annuity was purchased for the payment of client's future benefits. If all this is satisfactoriy proven, the PBGC should pay the benefit, which it guarantees.

We filed this claim a few months ago on behalf of a client who was employedby the plan sponsor, but not yet vested, on the date of the standard termination of the plan. We argued that under I.R.C. 411(d)(3), she should have become fully vested in the portion of the benefit accrued at the date of termination. Haven't gotten a response yet, but thought this letter might be useful to others.

2014 National Training - SCPRP Case Sharing by Roger Curme - TMRS Municipal Pension Overpayment Case

2014 National Training: WSPAP Presentation: A Tale of Contiguous noncovered service (SEIU Case Involving a Vesting Dispute)