{
  "id": 2605032,
  "name": "CAROLE L. FOSCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fosco v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201490\u20140604",
  "first_page": "842",
  "last_page": "846",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 842"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5393061
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "399 N.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 3d 791",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5608505
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/79/0791-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "408 N.E.2d 113",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. App. 3d 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3187987
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/86/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 N.E.2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5481723
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/81/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "371 N.E.2d 1189",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3414004
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/56/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 6987,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.97426162790835e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46333570026669507
    },
    "sha256": "1f12a764510eb294dd6f0c7cd25281f0cbb9ba23696e3eb5afd549bff3baf5e9",
    "simhash": "1:a97968b7aa230614",
    "word_count": 1140
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:27.836966+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CAROLE L. FOSCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HAASE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Carole L. Fosco, brought this action seeking review of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) Board of Trustee\u2019s (Board\u2019s) decision which denied her application for an IMRF survivor annuity. The trial court affirmed the defendant Board\u2019s decision. The plaintiff appeals.\nThe facts are not in dispute. The decedent, Lewis J. Fosco, married Norma Irene Fosco on April 4, 1970. On March 31, 1982, the decedent terminated his service with his IMRF employer. On April 1, 1982, his retirement annuity began. On June 6, 1983, the decedent and Norma divorced.\nThereafter, the decedent married the plaintiff. Following the decedent\u2019s death on November 21, 1987, both Norma and the plaintiff applied for an IMRF survivor annuity payable on account of the decedent\u2019s death.\nThe Board granted Norma\u2019s application and denied the plaintiff\u2019s application. The Board\u2019s decisions were made pursuant to section 7\u2014 154 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 7\u2014154), which provides the eligibility requirements for an IMRF surviving spouse annuity. Additionally, the Board found that the plaintiff was entitled to a $1,000 lump-sum death benefit payment.\nThe plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint for administrative review of the Board\u2019s decision. The circuit court of Peoria County affirmed the Board\u2019s decision. The plaintiff appeals.\nOn appeal, the plaintiff first contends that she had a vested contractual right to receive a surviving spouse annuity.\nWe note that if the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for construction to ascertain the meaning of the statute. (Illinois Racing Board v. Hammond (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 609, 371 N.E.2d 1189.) In such a case, the plain meaning of the statute should be given effect. Finley v. Finley (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 317, 410 N.E.2d 12.\nSection 7 \u2014 154(l)(a) of the Code, relied on by the Board, lists the eligibility requirements for receiving a surviving spouse annuity. It plainly provides:\n\u201c(1) Surviving spouse annuities shall be payable to the surviving spouse of a participating employee or employee annuitant or person, who on the date of death would have been entitled to a retirement annuity, had he applied for such annuity, and who dies at any time when a surviving spouse annuity equals at least $5 per month, provided:\na. The spouse was married to the participating employee for at least 1 year on the date of death, or was married to the annuitant or person entitled to a retirement annuity for at least 1 year prior to the date of termination of service ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 7\u2014154(1).\nThe statute is clear and unambiguous. To qualify for a surviving spouse annuity, the spouse must have been married to a \u201cparticipating\u201d employee for at least one year on the date of death or the spouse must have been married to the \u201cannuitant\u201d for at least one year prior to the date of termination of service.\nIn the instant case, the plaintiff was not married to the decedent until after he became an annuitant. Also, she was not married to the decedent while he was a \u201cparticipating\u201d employee. Therefore, she was ineligible to receive an annuity under the clear language of the statute.\nThe plaintiff contends that the term \u201cpresent spouse\u201d in paragraph 2 of the decedent\u2019s certificate of benefits refers to the decedent\u2019s spouse on the date of his death.\nWe disagree. The certificate states that \u201cThis is a joint and survivor annuity with your present spouse.\u201d It also states that \u201cif your present spouse does not survive you, your beneficiary will be paid.\u201d\nWe find that the plain meaning of the term \u201cpresent spouse\u201d refers to the spouse on the effective date of the certificate, which is April 1, 1982. The certificate also refers to a present spouse who does not survive the annuitant. It would defy logic to state what happens if a present spouse predeceases the annuitant and yet define \u201cpresent spouse\u201d as the spouse on the date of death of the annuitant. That would create an impossible situation in which the language about a spouse predeceasing an annuitant is a nullity. We are not going to presume such an intent on the drafters of the instrument.\nThe plaintiff next argues that the Board\u2019s decision denying her a survivor\u2019s annuity violated her equal protection rights. She claims that section 7 \u2014 154(l)(a) of the Code creates an arbitrary distinction between the surviving spouse of a \u201cparticipating\u201d employee and the surviving spouse of an \u201cannuitant\u201d employee.\nThe statute does create a distinction between the spouse of a deceased participating employee and the spouse of a deceased annuitant employee. The surviving spouse of an employee who dies while still actively participating in the IMRF must have been married to the employee for one year prior to the employee\u2019s death to receive the surviving annuity. The surviving spouse of a deceased IMRF annuitant must have been married to the annuitant for at least one year prior to the date the annuitant terminated service.\nWe note, however, that the legislature is not prohibited from enacting legislation which affects one class of people differently from others. (Fishman v. Teachers\u2019 Retirement System (1980), 86 Ill. App. 3d 649, 408 N.E.2d 113.) The legislature may differentiate between persons similarly situated as long as the classification bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate State purpose. (In re Marriage of Thornqvist (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 791, 399 N.E.2d 176.) We further note that there is a strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, even where some inequities result. People v. Palkes (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 472, 288 N.E.2d 469.\nAlthough section 7 \u2014 154(l)(a) of the Code creates a distinction between the spouse of a deceased participating employee and the spouse of a deceased annuitant employee, the distinction is not unreasonable. A reasonable basis for the classification is to provide for a spouse married to a participating employee who dies during the latter years of the couple\u2019s working lives while they are planning for retirement. On the other hand, the spouse of a deceased annuitant who marries the annuitant after retirement has not contributed to the planning for retirement as did the spouse of a participating employee. Therefore, the two classes involved are not similarly situated and the classifications created are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that the plaintiff\u2019s equal protection rights were not violated.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCUSKEY and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HAASE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chester C. Fuller, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Kathleen O\u2019Brien, of Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CAROLE L. FOSCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201490\u20140604\nOpinion filed May 13, 1991.\nChester C. Fuller, of Peoria, for appellant.\nKathleen O\u2019Brien, of Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0842-01",
  "first_page_order": 864,
  "last_page_order": 868
}