Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Horney v U S Post Office 3.02

Section 27(f)

PENSION OFFSET, Cost of benefit

CITE AS: Horney v U S Post Office, No. 82-2657-AE-B, Berrien Circuit Court (May 12, 1983).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Alan A. Horney

Employer: U S Post Office

Docket No: UCF80 16132 75134

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The cost of the benefit cannot be construed to mean the present actuarial value of the benefit. "This Court interprets the statutory use of the word "costs" in its plain and ordinary meaning that is, the amount actually spent for something (perhaps of much greater value)".

FACTS: Claimant and employer paid matching contributions to the retirement fund totaling $28,848. The ultimate value of the pension (based on an actuarial computation) would be $134,000. There is no showing that other costs, beyond the contributions and the respective interest on said contributions were actually paid into the fund.

DECISION: Claimant's benefits are not subject to reduction under Section 27(f).

RATIONALE: "That the amount actually contributed by both parties plus interest may not be sufficient to pay the ultimate possible pension benefits that might be received by appellant and that any such contingent balance may have to come from other sources (the amount of which is now underterminate and may be nothing) does not make such contingent balance a "cost of benefits" in determining and reducing the amount of unemployment benefits to which appellant otherwise is entitled.


3, 6, 14:C

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page