Utah Court of Appeals

Does withdrawing contributions from Utah retirement systems forfeit all service credit? Ostler v. Retirement Board Explained

2017 UT App 96
No. 20160220-CA
June 15, 2017
Affirmed

Summary

Neal Ostler worked for public employers from 1972-1988, accruing 15.167 years of service credit in a contributory retirement system, but withdrew his member contributions in 1990. He later worked for other public entities and sought retirement benefits in 2013, arguing he should retain service credit attributable to employer contributions despite withdrawing his member contributions.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about retirement system forfeiture in Ostler v. Retirement Board, clarifying the scope of service credit loss when members withdraw their contributions from contributory retirement plans.

Background and Facts

Neal Ostler worked for various public employers from 1972 to 1988, participating in the Public Safety Contributory Retirement System where both he and his employers made contributions. During this period, he accrued 15.167 years of service credit. In 1990, after leaving public employment, Ostler elected to withdraw his member contributions totaling approximately $27,000. He later worked for other public entities and applied for retirement benefits in 2013, but was denied because he had insufficient service credit to qualify.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether withdrawing member contributions from a contributory retirement system forfeits only the service credit attributable to those member contributions, or whether it results in complete forfeiture of all service credit earned during that employment period. Ostler argued he should retain service credit corresponding to the employer contributions that remained in the system.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court examined Utah Code Section 49-11-501(5), which provides that a member who receives a refund of member contributions “forfeits the service credit based on those contributions.” The court concluded that all service credit is “based on” member contributions because the statutory framework requires both employer and member contributions to earn any service credit. Under Section 49-11-401(3)(a), service credit accrues only when “all required contributions are paid.” The court found no mechanism in the Act for dividing service credit into separate member-contribution-based and employer-contribution-based portions.

Practice Implications

This decision has significant implications for public employees considering withdrawal of retirement contributions. The ruling clarifies that taking a refund of member contributions results in complete forfeiture of service credit for that employment period, regardless of employer contributions remaining in the system. Practitioners should counsel clients that the only way to restore forfeited service credit is through redeposit of the withdrawn contributions plus applicable interest, as permitted under Section 49-11-502.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Ostler v. Retirement Board

Citation

2017 UT App 96

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20160220-CA

Date Decided

June 15, 2017

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

When a member withdraws contributions from a contributory retirement system, all service credit earned during that period is forfeited because service credit requires both member and employer contributions, making all service credit ‘based on’ the member contributions within the meaning of the forfeiture statute.

Standard of Review

Correctness for interpretation and application of statutes; correctness for application of statute of limitations to undisputed facts; correctness for legal conclusions regarding laches with clear error for factual findings; questions of law for res judicata

Practice Tip

When advising clients about retirement system withdrawals, emphasize that taking a refund of member contributions forfeits all associated service credit, even though employer contributions remain in the system.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    First American Title Insurance Company v. J.B. Ranch, Inc.

    May 12, 1998

    Class D road maps filed with the county clerk’s office pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 27-12-26 do not constitute ‘public records’ that impart constructive notice under a title insurance policy because the statute lacks express language requiring such notice.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Discover Bank v. Kendall

    April 11, 2013

    When a party fails to respond to requests for admissions within the time limit prescribed by Rule 36 and fails to move to withdraw or amend those admissions, the matters are conclusively established as true and must be given effect in summary judgment proceedings.
    • Discovery
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.