{ "id": 5799610, "name": "FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES', OFFICERS', AND OFFICIALS' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund v. Municipal Employees', Officers', & Officials' Annuity & Benefit Fund", "decision_date": "1991-09-10", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20143324", "first_page": "707", "last_page": "714", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 707" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "161 N.E. 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 Ill. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5205491 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/330/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 Ill. App. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3230014 ], "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/252/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3326343 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12" }, { "page": "12" }, { "page": "12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/65/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 N.E.2d 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 806", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3506318 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0806-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 N.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 2d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5570227 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "160" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/131/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 N.E.2d 1050", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 Ill. App. 3d 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3569414 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/139/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 N.E.2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Ill. 2d 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5319673 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "294" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/9/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 N.E. 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ill. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3177819 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/171/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 N.E.2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. App. 3d 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2634715 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/36/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 N.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Ill. App. 3d 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2938494 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "263" }, { "page": "263" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/22/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 N.E.2d 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 925", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3531479 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "927" }, { "page": "927" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/140/0925-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 689, "char_count": 15612, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0405791161159135e-07, "percentile": 0.5506579727235063 }, "sha256": "6abfe1759649e94e09b786bc1b0951065370b85b448b69b267268f2e38645a0d", "simhash": "1:5235aeb72e1dd4df", "word_count": 2551 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:35.632923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "FIREMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\u2019, OFFICERS\u2019, AND OFFICIALS\u2019 ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE DiVITO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Firemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (Firemen\u2019s Fund) brought suit against defendant Municipal Employees\u2019, Officers\u2019, and Officials\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (the Municipal Fund), alleging actions for unjust enrichment and imposition of a public trust. For relief, Firemen\u2019s Fund sought a transfer of the City of Chicago\u2019s (the City\u2019s) contributions to the Municipal Fund to its pension fund. The Municipal Fund moved to dismiss the complaint, and the circuit court granted its motion. Firemen\u2019s Fund appeals, raising in issue whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s complaint on the basis that the applicable statutes do not create a cause of action to compel the transfer of moneys and, thus, the court did not have the judicial authority to order the transfer.\nFiremen\u2019s Fund was created in accordance with the Firemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund Act (Firemen\u2019s Pension Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 108x/2, par. 6 \u2014 101 et seq.) to provide for the payment of retirement and disability benefits to disabled and retired City firefighters and their beneficiaries. Likewise, the Municipal Fund was established in accordance with the Municipal Employees\u2019, Officers\u2019, and Officials\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund Act (Municipal Pension Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 108x/2, par. 8 \u2014 101 et seq.) to provide similar benefits to retired and disabled City employees and their beneficiaries. Both Firemen\u2019s Fund and the Municipal Fund are supported through regular salary deductions from employees participating in the funds. In addition, the City provides matching contributions for each individual participant. It is these contributions which are at issue in the present case.\nPrior to July 1, 1983, paramedics employed by the City were not considered \u201cfiremen\u201d for purposes of inclusion in Firemen\u2019s Fund; rather, their pension contributions were paid into the Municipal Fund. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. lOS1^, par. 6 \u2014 106(a).) A statutory amendment, which became effective on September 24, 1983, included City paramedics in Firemen\u2019s Fund. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. lOS1^, par. 6 \u2014 106(a).) In anticipation of the effective date of the amendment, Firemen\u2019s Fund began accepting paramedics in its fund on July 1, 1983. After the amendment became effective, making paramedics eligible for membership in Firemen\u2019s Fund, approximately 440 paramedics joined Firemen\u2019s Fund.\nUpon entrance of the paramedics to Firemen\u2019s Fund, the Municipal Fund refunded to each of the paramedics the entire amount of their individual contributions paid into the Municipal Fund. The City\u2019s matching contributions made on behalf of the individual paramedics, however, remained in the Municipal Fund.\nOn October 25, 1989, Firemen\u2019s Fund filed its first complaint against the Municipal Fund. Thereafter, Firemen\u2019s Fund filed an amended two-count complaint alleging actions for unjust enrichment and imposition of a public trust. Firemen\u2019s Fund sought transfer of the matching contributions made by the City for the paramedics while members of the Municipal Fund.\nOn July 6, 1990, the Municipal Fund filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to sections 2 \u2014 615 and 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, pars. 2 \u2014 615, 2\u2014 619.) After hearing arguments of counsel, the circuit court granted the Municipal Fund\u2019s motion to dismiss. From the court\u2019s order dismissing its complaint, Firemen\u2019s Fund appeals.\nFiremen\u2019s Fund initially contends that the circuit court erred when it held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Specifically, Firemen\u2019s Fund maintains that the court should have applied the equitable principle of unjust enrichment to transfer the City\u2019s matching contributions from the Municipal Fund to Firemen\u2019s Fund.\nFiremen\u2019s Fund argues here, as it argued before the circuit court, that because it will be responsible to pay disability benefits to the paramedics for injuries that occurred prior to the paramedics\u2019 inclusion into Firemen\u2019s Fund (in other words, during their inclusion in the Municipal Fund), the Municipal Fund should transfer all contributions made by the City on behalf of those paramedics now in Firemen\u2019s Fund. Firemen\u2019s Fund further argues that it will be required to calculate and pay annuity and pension benefits based upon the paramedics\u2019 entire service as a paramedic, including the time of service prior to their inclusion in Firemen\u2019s Fund. Because the purpose of the City\u2019s contributions to both pension funds is to aid in the payment of the benefits available to participants in the funds and their beneficiaries, Firemen\u2019s Fund contends that the Municipal Fund\u2019s retention of in excess of $3 million contributed on behalf of paramedics now participating in Firemen\u2019s Fund is improper and inequitable. Thus, Firemen\u2019s Fund maintains, the circuit court erred in not ordering the transfer of the contributions pursuant to the principle of unjust enrichment.\nIn the instant case, the circuit court, after hearing arguments, held that the pension funds were \u201cfundamentally creatures of the legislature\u201d and, thus, it was powerless to grant the relief sought by Firemen's Fund. In so holding, the court stated:\n\u201cI have thought about this for purposes of appeal, and that\u2019s why I have decided that the only reason that the Court is granting the motion is because I\u2019m of the opinion that the Court is without power to grant the relief. Because if I thought that the equitable provisions and powers of this court would allow me to do so, I would do so because it\u2019s logical, it\u2019s fair, and it\u2019s reasonable, only because of [Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s] requirement to consider [the paramedics\u2019] prior service in calculating total pension.\u201d\nIn response to Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s argument that the circuit court erred in dismissing its complaint, the Municipal Fund argues that it properly retained the City\u2019s matching contributions. Specifically, the Municipal Fund contends that it followed statutory requirements to keep the matching contributions in a service annuity reserve. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. lOSVa, par. 8 \u2014 172.) For support, it relies upon section 8 \u2014 231 of the Municipal Pension Act, which provides, in pertinent part:\n\u201cAny participant in the fund who becomes a participant in any other annuity and benefit fund * * * may elect to receive a refund or annuity from this fund in the same manner as he would if he then resigned from his position in the service and had not become a participant in such other fund. No credit is allowed for any period of service as a participant in this fund for which the employee receives credit in such other fund, and no annuity shall be paid to such participant by this fund while he holds a position in the service which entitles him to participation in such other fund.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. IO8V2, par. 8-231.)\nThe Municipal Fund further relies upon section 8 \u2014 172 of the Municipal Pension Act, which provides in its entirety:\n\u201cWhenever any amount is refunded as provided in Sections 8 \u2014 168 and 8 \u2014 169, except in the case of a male employee who becomes a widower while in service after he becomes age 65, the amounts to the credit of the male employee from contributions by the city, shall be transferred to the prior service annuity reserve. Thereafter any such amounts shall become a credit to the city and, with interest thereon at the effective rate, be used to reduce the amount which the city would otherwise pay during a succeeding year.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. IO8V2, par. 8-172.\nThe Municipal Fund argues that these provisions specifically address the procedures to be used should a participant in the Municipal Fund switch to another pension fund. Because the legislature did not address the possibility that one fund would \u201crebate\u201d the City\u2019s matching contributions to another fund, the Municipal Fund argues that, by exclusion, the legislature did not intend such a result. See Janata v. Police Pension Fund (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 925, 927, 489 N.E.2d 498; Edwards v. Board of Trustees (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 260, 263, 317 N.E.2d 364 (in construing a statute, it is the duty of this court to enforce the pension law as enacted, according to its plain and unmistakable provisions).\nNotwithstanding the Municipal Fund\u2019s contention that it is not statutorily required to refund the matching contributions when participants in its fund switch to another fund, Firemen\u2019s Fund maintains that the principles of equity demand such a result. Firemen\u2019s Fund contends that the pension funds in the instant case are \u201cin the nature of\u201d charitable trusts. Consequently, the courts of equity have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute and the power to award an equitable remedy. See, e.g., County of Cook v. Barrett (1975), 36 Ill. App. 3d 623, 632-33, 344 N.E.2d 540 (the control of a trust is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of equity); Gavin v. Curtin (1898), 171 Ill. 640, 649, 49 N.E. 523 (if a court has jurisdiction to hear a cause, there is no reason why it should be deemed lacking in power to grant the same character of relief).\nFiremen\u2019s Fund thus urges this court to apply the doctrine of cy pres to the instant case. While Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s failure to raise this argument in the circuit court is not fatal, its cy pres argument is tenuous. Cy pres applies to property given in trust to be applied to a particular charitable purpose which has become impossible, impracticable, or illegal to carry out; in such a case, the court will direct the application of the property to some charitable purpose falling within the general purpose of the charity. (See City of Aurora ex rel. Egan v. YMCA (1956), 9 Ill. 2d 286, 294, 137 N.E.2d 347.) However, we do not accept Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s characterization of the pensions funds in the instant case as \u201ccharitable trusts.\u201d\nThe pension funds in the instant case are not in the nature of charitable trusts, but rather are contracts between the participants and the pension fund. (See Gualano v. City of Des Plaines (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 456, 458, 487 N.E.2d 1050.) Moreover, article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution provides that membership in any pension system of the State \u201cshall be an enforceable contractual relationship.\u201d Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, \u00a75; see also Gualano v. City of Des Plaines, 139 Ill. App. 3d 456, 487 N.E.2d 1050.\nFiremen\u2019s Fund also urges this court to apply the equitable principle of unjust enrichment. To state a cause of action based on the theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff\u2019s detriment, and that the defendant\u2019s retention of that benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. (HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc. (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 145, 160, 545 N.E.2d 672.) The cause of action based on unjust enrichment, however, does not require fault or illegality on the part of the defendant; rather, the essence of the cause of action is that one party is enriched and it would be unjust for that party to retain the enrichment. Partipilo v. Hallman (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810, 510 N.E.2d 8.\nAs the foregoing attests, both parties have advanced numerous reasons why the circuit court\u2019s dismissal of Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s complaint was either in error or proper. Notwithstanding the arguments, the test for the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action remains whether it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved permitting the plaintiff the recovery he seeks. (Kenneke v. First National Bank (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 10, 12, 382 N.E.2d 309.) In determining whether a complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences must be taken as true, and if these facts and inferences create a basis for recovery, a dismissal of a cause must be reversed. (Kenneke v. First National Bank, 65 Ill. App. 3d at 12.) Correspondingly, in an action in equity for unjust enrichment, a complaint on which recovery may be based need only allege that there has been unjust retention of a benefit by one party to the detriment of another against the fundamental principles of justice and equity. Kenneke v. First National Bank, 65 Ill. App. 3d at 12.\nHere, despite the fact that Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s complaint alleged all the proper elements of unjust enrichment, the circuit court properly dismissed the cause. Although, as the circuit court stated, Firemen\u2019s Fund pled and may be able to prove the elements of unjust enrichment, the fact that the pension funds in the instant case are created and maintained by legislative enactment requires this court to enforce the statutes according to their plain and unmistakable provisions. Janata v. Police Pension Fund, 140 Ill. App. 3d at 927; Edwards v. Board of Trustees, 22 Ill. App. 3d at 263.\nBoth the Firemen\u2019s Pension Act and the Municipal Pension Act are lengthy and detailed. The legislature, in enacting the statutes applicable to the pension funds, clearly expended a great deal of effort in including all possible occurrences and results which could take place in the administration of the pension funds. Yet, nowhere in either act did the legislature provide for the transfer of the City\u2019s matching contributions from one pension fund to another when participants switch funds. Rather, the legislature specifically provided, in circumstances where the participant withdraws from a pension fund, for the funds to remain in an annuity reserve. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. IO8V2, par. 8 \u2014 172.) Notwithstanding section 8 \u2014 172 of the Municipal Pension Act, the legislature has thus far failed to provide for a provision governing the wide-scale mandated transfer of participants from one fund to another, as has taken place in the instant case. In the absence of such a provision, we find that section 8 \u2014 172 is applicable to the instant case and mandates that the Municipal Fund retain the City\u2019s matching contributions in its annuity reserve fund.\nBecause a pension board \u201chas no powers beyond those given to it in the act creating it, and has neither the right nor the power to pay moneys to anyone not within the terms of the act fixing the conditions under which a pension is payable\u201d (People ex rel. Langan v. Hansen (1929), 252 Ill. App. 212, 221, citing People ex rel. Drea v. Hanson (1928), 330 Ill. 79, 161 N.E. 145), the circuit court did not err in refusing to usurp the power of the legislature to dictate the rights and responsibilities of the pension funds. Thus, we find that the circuit court properly dismissed Firemen\u2019s Fund\u2019s cause for failure to state a set of facts upon which recovery can be granted.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCARIANO, P.J., and HARTMAN, J., concur.\nSection 8 \u2014 168 governs the procedures used when a participant withdraws from a pension fund and resigns from his position in the service. See also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 1081/2, par. 8-231.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE DiVITO" } ], "attorneys": [ "Fagel & Haber, of Chicago (Maynard B. Russell, Steven J. Teplinsky, and James A. Roth, of counsel), for appellant.", "Frederick R Heiss and William A. Marovitz, both of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FIREMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\u2019, OFFICERS\u2019, AND OFFICIALS\u2019 ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20143324\nOpinion filed September 10, 1991.\nFagel & Haber, of Chicago (Maynard B. Russell, Steven J. Teplinsky, and James A. Roth, of counsel), for appellant.\nFrederick R Heiss and William A. Marovitz, both of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0707-01", "first_page_order": 729, "last_page_order": 736 }