Teachers Retirement Bd. v. Genest, C050889
In dispute over legislation which reduced the state's obligation to fund the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account of the Teachers' Retirement Fund for for fiscal year 2003-2004, summary judgment for plaintiffs on claim that legislation unconstitutionally violated the contract clause of both the state and federal Constitutions, and refusal to address alternate argument that the legislation interferes with plaintiffs' plenary authority, is affirmed as the legislation impaired contractual rights. However, the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest at a rate of 7 percent, rather than 10 percent, per annum.
- Decided 08/30/2007
- Published 08/30/2007
- California Court of Appeal
- For Appellant:
- Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, Deborah B. Caplan, N. Eugene Hill, Sacramento, and Richard C. Miadich for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Mary Ellen Signorille, Melvin Radowitz and Barbara A. Jones for AARP as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants and on behalf of Intervener and Appellant., Stevens & O'Connell and Steven S. Kimball for Arkansas Retired Teachers Association, Maryland Retired School Personnel Association, Montana Retired Educators Association, New York State Retired Teachers' Association, Utah Retired School Employees Association, and Wisconsin Retired Educators' Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants and on behalf of Intervener and Appellant., Seyfarth Shaw, Kurt A. Kappes, Sacramento, and Jason T. Cooksey for Intervener and Appellant.
- For Appellees:
- Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott and John T. Kennedy, Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant., No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.