Can a West Virginia municipal police or fire pension fund credit fractional years of service when calculating retirement benefits over 20 years of service, and what does the fund have to do if it has been doing so?
Plain-English summary
The Beckley Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund and the Beckley Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund had been calculating retirement benefits using fractional years of service: an officer who worked three months past the 20-year mark would get a 0.5% benefit increase (one-quarter of the 2% per-year statutory bump). The Municipal Pensions Oversight Board reviewed the funds in late 2020 and concluded the practice was wrong, asking the Attorney General to confirm.
The Attorney General agreed: the practice violates W. Va. Code § 8-22-25(b).
Why fractional years are not allowed. The statute calls for "additional years of service completed at the time of retirement in excess of twenty years of service." The verb "complete" means to bring something to a perfected state or to finish. A year is not "completed" if the worker has been at the job only part of the year. The legislature's choice of "completed years" is the answer.
Other parts of the statutory chapter use different units. Sections 8-22-16(d) and 8-22-25(a) refer to "twelve-consecutive-month periods." When the legislature uses different language in different parts of a statute, the courts assume different meanings were intended (Sebelius v. Auburn, 2013). The general legal principle of disregarding fractional time units (Steeley v. Funkhouser, 1969, on statutes of limitations) reinforces the same conclusion. And other West Virginia pension systems do expressly include fractional years (W. Va. Code §§ 5-10-14, 15-2A-6); the legislature knows how to require fractional credit when it wants to and did not do so here.
The opinion also notes the structural reason: pension provisions like § 8-22-25(b) are designed "to control[] the amounts paid in retirement benefits and to thereby ensure continued adequate funding of the [fund]" (Summers, 2005). Crediting fractional years risks overpayments that deplete the fund, which the legislature wants to avoid.
The fund's argument that the statute does not expressly prohibit fractional credit also fails. Municipal corporations have only the powers expressly conferred or clearly implied (Crouse v. Holdren, 1945). Statutory silence cannot be read to grant fractional-year authority. And the Board's contrary interpretation is entitled to "some deference" (Pioneer Pipe, 2016).
The opinion also rejects the argument that equitable considerations should let beneficiaries keep overpaid amounts. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Clark (2021) recently held that pension beneficiaries cannot claim equitable reliance on payments at terms the statute does not permit, because "no promise [was] made" by the legislature.
What the fund must do. Section 8-22-27a is the correction statute. It requires the fund to correct overpayments in a timely manner and applies retroactively (per Clark, 2021, treating an analogous PERS amendment as remedial and retroactive). The mechanics:
- Future payments must be adjusted to the correct calculation (no more fractional-year credit going forward).
- Past overpayments must be recouped from beneficiaries.
Two carve-outs apply. First, the correction must be "timely." Clark held that a 17-year delay was untimely, but the AG could not say from the available facts whether the Beckley funds' situation is timely. Second, retirees who left service before July 7, 2017 (the effective date of § 8-22-27a as enacted in 2017) can keep their overpayments only if the City of Beckley's Common Council passes a majority-vote authorization under § 8-22-27a(d). If the Council does that, it must also "authorize continued payment into the fund" equal to what it would have paid under the proper actuarial method, so the fund stays whole.
What about contributions paid during fractional years? If a beneficiary contributed during a partial year that did not count toward service credit, can they get those contributions back? The opinion says it is an "open question." Section 8-22-27a(c) refers to "mistaken or excess employee contributions" and gives the fund's board "sole authority for determining the means of return, offset or credit." The contributions are not "mistaken" because they were legally required at the time. But the word "excess" might cover this situation. Some other public pension systems explicitly permit refunds. Clark suggests the Court views employee payment obligations as separate from the entitlement to benefits, which complicates the refund question. The AG declines to definitively resolve the issue.
The opinion ends by noting that the Legislature has the power to revise § 8-22-25 to permit fractional years, to relieve beneficiaries of repayment obligations, or to clarify contribution refund rules. Until it does, the funds must apply the law as written.
What this means for you
If you are a municipal police or fire pension fund trustee
Three steps. First, review your benefit calculations. If you have been crediting fractional years (any benefit increase based on partial years past 20 or past 25), you have to fix the calculations going forward. Second, identify everyone who has been receiving payments based on fractional-year credit. Third, decide on a correction strategy: (a) recoup, (b) seek municipal-council authorization for pre-2017 retirees, (c) evaluate whether the correction is timely under Clark.
The City Council vote under § 8-22-27a(d) is for retirees who left service before July 7, 2017. The vote must specifically authorize continued overpayment plus authorize commensurate increased city payments into the fund. Lawyer up before bringing a § 8-22-27a(d) vote to council, because the offsetting payment requirement has practical fiscal consequences.
The timeliness defense under § 8-22-27a(a) is fact-specific. Clark's 17-year benchmark sets one outer bound; the AG would not commit on shorter periods. If your fund has been crediting fractional years for a long period without prior notice, expect the timeliness question to be litigated.
If you are a Beckley police or fire pension beneficiary affected by this
Check your benefit calculation. If your retirement annuity was calculated using fractional years past 20 or past 25, your annuity will be adjusted downward going forward, and the fund will likely seek repayment of past overpayments.
Three potential defenses if you are facing recoupment:
- Timeliness. If the fund delayed correction unreasonably (the Clark 17-year benchmark is the leading signpost), the timeliness statute may bar recoupment.
- City Council authorization. If you retired before July 7, 2017, ask the Common Council whether it will authorize continued overpayment under § 8-22-27a(d). If the Council does so (with the offsetting fund payment), you keep the overpayment.
- Refund of contributions. If you contributed during a fractional year for which you receive no service credit, you may have an argument for a refund of those contributions under § 8-22-27a(c). The AG opinion acknowledges this is an open question, so consult counsel about your specific situation.
If you are a city council member or city attorney advising one
The correction obligation is not optional. The fund "shall correct the error in a timely manner" (§ 8-22-27a(a)). Your role is governance: deciding whether to authorize continued overpayment for pre-2017 retirees under § 8-22-27a(d). That vote requires you to commit the city to additional fund contributions matching what the actuarial method would require. Ask the fund's actuary to model the city's payment obligation before the vote.
If the city's exposure is large, the alternative is to let the fund recoup. The political optics are difficult either way, so plan communications carefully.
If you are a member of the Municipal Pensions Oversight Board
Use this opinion as a template for similar errors at other municipal funds. The fractional-year practice may not be unique to Beckley; oversight reviews should test whether other funds have similar miscalculations. The AG's analytical framework here (statute interpretation, Clark retroactivity, § 8-22-27a corrective procedure) maps onto any fund-correction case.
If you are an actuary advising a municipal pension fund
The benefit calculation should round years of service down to whole years for purposes of § 8-22-25(b)'s additional-percent calculation. Make sure your fund's calculation engine uses whole years. Document the change of method for audit and oversight purposes.
The retroactive application question (correction reaches pre-2017 errors per Clark) means actuarial liabilities for pre-2017 retirees may differ depending on whether the city authorizes continued overpayment. Build that scenario into your projections.
If you are an attorney representing a fund member in a recoupment dispute
The strongest defenses are timeliness (with Clark as the leading authority) and, for pre-2017 retirees, the § 8-22-27a(d) governing-body-authorization route. The contribution-refund argument under § 8-22-27a(c) is a colorable but unresolved theory worth raising.
Common questions
Q: What does "year of service completed" mean?
A: A year worked from start to finish. Three months past the 20-year mark is not a "completed" year. The opinion ties this to the dictionary definition of "complete" (to bring to an end, to make whole).
Q: My fund has been crediting fractional years for decades. Does this opinion really require us to change?
A: Yes. The opinion is unambiguous on the substantive rule, and Clark (2021) confirms that § 8-22-27a applies retroactively. The remaining question is the practical scope of the correction (timeliness, governing-body authorization).
Q: How does the Common Council authorization work?
A: For retirees who left service before July 7, 2017, the city's governing body can authorize continued overpayment by majority vote (§ 8-22-27a(d)). If it does, the city must also authorize continued payment into the fund equal to the actuarial amount.
Q: What if our fund's records do not show clearly which years a retiree completed?
A: That is a recordkeeping problem the fund will need to resolve through its underlying employment records. The legal rule is whole years; the factual application requires clean data.
Q: Can the fund recoup overpayments by reducing future benefit payments?
A: § 8-22-27a(d) authorizes the fund to seek repayment "in any manner permitted by the board of trustees." Reducing future benefit payments is one approach; lump-sum recoupment is another. The board has discretion within reasonable bounds.
Q: What happens to interest or earnings on the overpaid amounts?
A: The opinion does not address this directly. Funds typically recoup the principal overpayment; whether interest or earnings are recoupable depends on the fund's documented practice.
Q: Are state pension funds (PERS, TRS) affected by this opinion?
A: No. Other West Virginia pension systems (PERS at § 5-10-14, the State Police system at § 15-2A-6) expressly permit fractional-year credit. Those statutes are unchanged.
Q: Can I get back contributions I made during a fractional year if I do not get credit for it?
A: The AG calls this an "open question." Section 8-22-27a(c) might cover it, but the AG could not find authority sufficient to give a definitive answer. Consult counsel.
Q: Does this opinion apply to non-Beckley municipal funds?
A: The substantive rule (no fractional years under § 8-22-25(b)) applies to any covered fund. The procedural specifics (Common Council vote) apply to whichever municipality holds the fund. The Municipal Pensions Oversight Board may want to flag the issue for other municipalities to self-audit.
Q: How do we calculate the timeliness window for correction?
A: Clark held that 17 years was untimely. Shorter periods are fact-specific. Document when the fund first learned of the error and when correction efforts began.
Background and statutory framework
West Virginia maintains separate pension systems for state employees (PERS, § 5-10-1 et seq.), state troopers (§ 15-2A-1 et seq.), teachers (TRS), and municipal police and fire (§ 8-22-1 et seq.). Section 8-22 governs the municipal police and fire systems, which are administered by city-level boards of trustees with state-level oversight from the Municipal Pensions Oversight Board.
Section 8-22-25 sets the benefit formula. Subsection (a) provides 60% of average salary after 20 years. Subsection (b) adds 2% per year for each completed year between 20 and 25, plus 1% per year for each completed year between 25 and 30, capping at 75% (15 additional percentage points). The phrase "years of service completed" is the textual hook for the AG's opinion.
The correction statute (§ 8-22-27a) was enacted in 2017. It requires funds to correct errors "in a timely manner," to prospectively adjust mistaken payments, and to seek repayment from overpaid beneficiaries. Subsection (d) gives the city's governing body majority-vote authority to authorize continued overpayment for retirees who left service before July 7, 2017, conditioned on the city's parallel commitment to fund the actuarial cost.
W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Clark (2021) addressed an analogous PERS amendment. The Court held the correction statute is "remedial" and applies retroactively. Clark also held that 17 years was untimely; Clark identified the timeliness question but did not give a bright-line shorter benchmark.
Cross-statutory reference points reinforce the no-fractional-years reading. PERS at § 5-10-14 expressly credits "days and months" of service time. The State Police system at § 15-2A-6 expressly calculates based on "the number of full years and fraction of last year." The legislature's express inclusion of fractional credit in those statutes implies its conscious omission in § 8-22-25(b).
The opinion frames the contribution-refund question as open. Section 8-22-27a(c) refers to "mistaken or excess employee contributions" and gives the fund's board "sole authority for determining the means of return, offset or credit." The opinion notes that contributions made during fractional years are not "mistaken" (they were legally required), but the word "excess" might encompass them. The AG declines to definitively resolve the question, citing Jackson v. Belcher (2013) on the principle that statutory words have specific meaning.
Citations and references
Statutes (W. Va. Code unless noted):
- § 5-3-1 (AG opinions)
- §§ 8-22-25(a), (b), 8-22-16(d), 8-22-16a, 8-22-19a, 8-22-27a (municipal police/fire pensions)
- §§ 5-10-14 (PERS service credit), 15-2A-6 (State Police pension)
Cases:
- In re R.S., 244 W. Va. 564, 855 S.E.2d 355 (2021)
- State v. Gen. Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, VFW, 144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013)
- Steeley v. Funkhouser, 153 W. Va. 423, 169 S.E.2d 701 (1969)
- Summers v. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd., 217 W. Va. 399, 618 S.E.2d 408 (2005)
- State ex rel. Crouse v. Holdren, 128 W. Va. 365, 36 S.E.2d 481 (1945)
- Pioneer Pipe, Inc. v. Swain, 237 W. Va. 722, 791 S.E.2d 168 (2016)
- W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Clark, 245 W. Va. 510, 859 S.E.2d 453 (2021)
- M.H. v. C.H., 242 W. Va. 307, 835 S.E.2d 171 (2019)
- Jackson v. Belcher, 232 W. Va. 513, 753 S.E.2d 11 (2013)
- Capozzi v. Russo, 2003 WL 21040561 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)
- Cooper v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 734 (Ct. Cl. 1949)
Source
- Landing page: not separately published (the PDF is the official record)
- Original PDF: https://ago.wv.gov/media/17571/download?inline
Original opinion text
State of West Virginia
Office of the Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey
Attorney General
(304) 558-2021
Fax (304) 558-0140
January 21, 2022
Blair Taylor
Executive Director
Municipal Pensions Oversight Board
301 Eagle Mountain Road, Suite 251
Charleston, WV 25311
Dear Executive Director Taylor:
The Municipal Pensions Oversight Board ("the Board") has asked for an Opinion of the
Attorney General about whether certain pension payments made by the Beckley Firemen's Pension
and Relief Fund and Beckley Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund ("the Beckley Funds" or "the
Funds") comply with West Virginia Code § 8-22-25. This Opinion is issued under West Virginia
Code § 5-3-1, which provides that the Attorney General shall "give written opinions and advice
upon questions of law ... whenever required to do so, in writing, by ... any ... state officer [or]
board." To the extent this Opinion relies on facts, it is based solely on the factual assertions in
your correspondence with the Office of the Attorney General.
Your letter explains that the Board conducted compliance reviews of the Beckley Funds in
late 2020. During that review, the Board observed that the Beckley Funds were using "fractional
years" of service, that is, months, to calculate pension benefits. The Board believes that these
calculations are inconsistent with West Virginia Code § 8-22-25(b), which provides that pension
funds must calculate benefits for eligible police and fire personnel using a member's "years of
service completed."
Your letter therefore raises two legal questions:
(1) Does West Virginia Code § 8-22-25 allow pension funds to use fractional years
in calculating pension benefits?
(2) If covered funds cannot use fractional years, what steps must the Beckley Funds
take to rectify their benefit calculations?
As the Board did, we too conclude that West Virginia Code § 8-22-25(b) does not permit
covered funds to include fractional years in their calculations. Thus, the Beckley Funds cannot
continue using fractional years to calculate pension benefits. Further, with certain fact-specific
caveats explained below, the statute requires the Beckley Funds to make prospective adjustments
to annuity payments that have already begun and recoup amounts reflecting overpayments. We
also conclude, however, that plan beneficiaries might be entitled to recoup any contributions made
into the Funds during the fractional year, but that matter is an open question without clear
statutory direction.
Discussion
I. West Virginia Code § 8-22-25(b) prevents the Beckley Funds from using fractional
years to calculate benefits.
We start with the language of the relevant statute. See In re R.S., 244 W. Va. 564, 855
S.E.2d 355, 361 (2021). Here, Section 8-22-25(b) reads:
Any member of any such department who is entitled to a retirement pension under
the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and who has been in the honorable
service of such department for more than twenty years at the time of the member's
retirement shall receive, in addition to the sixty percent authorized in said
subsection (a):
(1) Two additional percent, to be added to the sixty percent for each of the first five
additional years of service completed at the time of retirement in excess of twenty
years of service up to a maximum of seventy percent; and
(2) One additional percent, to be added to such maximum of seventy percent, for
each of the first five additional years of service completed at the time of retirement
in excess of twenty-five years of service up to a maximum of seventy-five percent.
The total additional credit provided for in this subsection may not exceed fifteen
additional percent.
(emphases added).
Your questions center on the meaning of "years of service completed." The Beckley Funds
read the statute to say that a beneficiary can be credited for less than a full year, such that benefits
could be increased by fractional percentages. Under that view, for example, an employee who
works for three months past his or her twentieth year of service would receive an additional 0.5%
increase in retirement benefits.
But because the statute refers to "completed" years, it does not permit the Beckley Funds
to take a fractional-year approach. "[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and
familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use." State
v. Gen. Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 144 W. Va. 137, 145, 107 S.E.2d
353, 358 (1959). To "complete" something means "to bring to an end and especially into a
perfected state," "to make whole or perfect," or "to mark the end of." Merriam-Webster.com
(last visited Jan. 21, 2022). A year of service has not been "brought to an end" or "made whole"
when the employee worked for part of the year, and the public employee cannot "mark the end of
the service year. Thus, in referring to "completed," the statute directs that the employee must finish
a full year of service.
Other parts of the statute that refer to months, not years, confirm this understanding. For
example, both West Virginia Code §§ 8-22-16(d) and 8-22-25(a) use "twelve-consecutive-month
periods." As a rule, the Legislature's "use of certain language in one part of the statute and
different language in another can indicate that different meanings were intended." Sebelius v.
Auburn Reg'l Med Ctr., 568 U.S. 145, 156 (2013) (cleaned up). And when a statute speaks to
units of time, the law generally ignores fractional units. See, e.g., Steeley v. Funkhouser, 153 W.
Va. 423, 427, 169 S.E.2d 701, 703 (1969). The Legislature has also expressly directed other
pension systems to include fractional years, but it did not do so here. Compare W. Va. Code § 8-22-25(b),
with id. § 5-10-14, and id. § 15-2A-6.
Further, both the Legislature and the Supreme Court of Appeals have said that pension-related
provisions like Section 8-22-25(b) are designed to "control[] the amounts paid in retirement
benefits and to thereby ensure continued adequate funding of the [fund]." Summers v. W. Va.
Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd., 217 W. Va. 399, 404, 618 S.E.2d 408, 413 (2005); see also W. Va. Code
§ 8-22-16a. The Board's position is consistent with that purpose, as it prevents overpayments that
could otherwise deplete the Funds.
Although the Funds correctly observe that the statute does not expressly prohibit fractional
benefit increases, the law does not permit us to draw meaning from that silence here. The Funds
were established by way of the City of Beckley's municipal powers. "A municipal corporation
has no powers save those expressly conferred by the legislative department or clearly implied as
an integral part of those granted by its charter or general statute." State ex rel. Crouse v. Holdren,
128 W. Va. 365, 367, 36 S.E.2d 481, 482 (1945). When in doubt, "the power is to be denied." Id.
Here, because Section 8-22-25(b) does not confer or clearly imply the right to credit fractional
years of service, statutory silence cannot lead to a different result.
We also do not expect that equitable considerations would lead a court to take a different
view. We explained in a December 2017 Opinion to the Board that the relevant statutes do not
leave room for such considerations. Since then, the Supreme Court of Appeals has reiterated that
plan beneficiaries cannot claim an equitable-reliance interest in state retirement funds paid out on
terms that the statute does not permit, as "no promise [was] made" by the Legislature in that
circumstance "upon which Respondents, active or retired, could have relied." W. Va. Consol.
Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Clark, 245 W. Va. 510, 859 S.E.2d 453, 466 n.73 (W. Va. 2021).
Thus, the structure the Legislature created in Section 8-22-25(b) does not leave room for
the Funds to include fractional years.
II. Under West Virginia Code § 8-22-27a, the Beckley Funds may need to make
corrections to annuity payments and member contributions.
The next question, then, is what the Beckley Funds must do to address payments premised
on fractional-year calculations.
W. Va. Code § 8-22-27a requires covered funds to correct overpayments to fund
beneficiaries:
If any error results in any member, retirant, beneficiary, entity, or other individual
receiving from the plan more than he or she would have been entitled to receive
had the error not occurred, the board of trustees, after learning of the error, shall
correct the error in a timely manner.
As we explained in our December 2017 Opinion, this overpayment provision is written in
non-discretionary terms; funds must correct the overpayment. See M.H. v. C.H., 242 W. Va. 307,
313, 835 S.E.2d 171, 177 (2019).
The statute then explains that, with certain exceptions, funds must prospectively and
retrospectively correct the overpayments:
Unless otherwise authorized by the governing body of the city in which the fund
was established as provided herein, if correction of the error occurs after annuity
payments to a retirant or beneficiary have commenced, the board of trustees shall
prospectively adjust the payment of the benefit to the correct amount. In addition,
the member, retirant, beneficiary, entity, or other person who received the
overpayment from the plan shall repay the amount of any overpayment to the
municipal policemen's pension fund or municipal firemen's pension fund in any
manner permitted by the board of trustees of that fund.
W. Va. Code § 8-22-27a(d).
There are, however, two limitations on this requirement. First, the statute requires the
Funds to make corrections in a "timely" manner. See id. § 8-22-27a(a). "Timeliness" is often hard
to define, and it usually depends on the facts of a given case. In Clark, for example, the Supreme
Court of Appeals held that a seventeen-year delay seeking correction of an overpayment by the
Public Employees Retirement System was not timely. 859 S.E.2d at 468.
We lack the facts to say whether a request for correction from the Funds would be "timely"
here. Your letter does not state, for example, how long these overpayments have occurred, when
they were first discovered, and what circumstances might justify any delay in failing to identify
the problem sooner.
Second, the Legislature provided that "the governing body of the city in which the fund
was established," namely, the Common Council for the City of Beckley, may allow for continuing
overpayments to certain beneficiaries. W. Va. Code § 8-22-27a(d). The statute explains:
The governing body of the city in which the overpaying municipal fund is
established may, by majority vote, authorize continued overpayment of retirement
benefits for any member, retirant, beneficiary, entity, or individual who retired prior
to the effective date of this section as enacted during the regular legislative session
of 2017.
In other words, for fund members who retired before July 7, 2017 (the effective date of the
enactment), the Common Council for the City of Beckley may authorize continued payment based
on the incorrect fractional-years calculation. No repayment or prospective adjustment would then
be required. Note, however, that the Common Council would also need to "authorize continued
payment into the fund in an amount equal to that which it would be responsible to pay under the
applicable actuarial method used by the city without reduction to any retirement benefit." Id.
Together, these potential exceptions show that if the Funds timely request correction, and
if the Common Council for the City of Beckley does not authorize continuing overpayment, then
Section 8-22-27a(d) would require the Beckley Funds to correct future payments and seek
repayment of amounts paid out that reflected credit for fractional years.
Finally, the Beckley Funds suggest that if beneficiaries are not entitled to credit for
fractional years, then those persons should be refunded any amounts paid into the fund during
fractional years. West Virginia Code 8-22-27a(c) discusses "overpayments to the plan by the
employee":
When mistaken or excess employee contributions or overpayments have been made
to the plan, the municipal policemen's or municipal firemen's pension and relief
fund board of trustees shall have sole authority for determining the means of return,
offset or credit to or for the benefit of the individual making the mistaken or excess
employee contribution of the amounts.
(emphasis added). The amounts members pay during partial years are not mistaken, as they were
obliged by law to pay them. But because the statute refers to "excess" contributions by employees
as well as mistaken ones, we believe the Beckley Funds may be correct in reading the statute to
allow for a limited return of contributions. "[T]he Legislature is presumed to intend that every
word used in a statute has a specific purpose and meaning," and "it is necessary to give effect to
every word and part of a statute in order to effectuate its true meaning." Jackson v. Belcher, 232
W. Va. 513, 518, 753 S.E.2d 11, 16 (2013). A court might therefore read "excess" to embrace
situations like this one, where an employee does not receive a benefit reflecting credit for a period
during which non-mistaken contributions were made.
On the other hand, although one West Virginia statute permits members to obtain refunds
of all their contributions when they leave their positions before benefits vest, it does not expressly
contemplate refunds of some contributions once the benefits vest. See W. Va. Code § 8-22-19a.
And as explained above, in at least some contexts, the Supreme Court of Appeals views members'
obligation to pay separately from their entitlement to receive benefits. See Clark, 859 S.E.2d at
466 n.73. So, in West Virginia, it is an open legal question whether an employee may seek a
refund of payments made during a specific period that does not then give rise to any attendant
benefit. We find no available authority sufficient to resolve whether a reviewing court would
conclude that "excess" for purposes of Section 8-22-27a(c) covers partial-year payments.
The Legislature has the power to change any of these provisions and grant whatever relief
it decides is appropriate. The Legislature could, for instance, decide that no repayment of
inappropriately paid benefits is necessary in circumstances like these. But until the Legislature
acts, the Executive Branch must respect and apply the law as written. And currently, the governing
statutes do not permit the Beckley Funds to calculate benefits based on fractional years.
Sincerely,
Patrick Morrisey
Attorney General
Lindsay See
Solicitor General
Caleb Seckman
Assistant Solicitor General