Skip to main content

Shelden v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

Cal. Ct. App.September 24, 2010No. A124912Cited 15 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Jones
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the employee's petition for writ of mandate, holding that overtime hours worked on a voluntary arrest warrant service team were not compensable as part of his regularly scheduled working hours for retirement benefit calculation purposes.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Against Officer's Retirement Benefit Claim** A police officer sued the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association because they wouldn't count his overtime hours toward his retirement benefits. The officer had worked extra hours on a voluntary arrest warrant service team and wanted those hours included when calculating his pension benefits. He believed this overtime should count as part of his regular working schedule for retirement purposes. The court sided with the retirement association. Both the original trial court and the appeals court ruled that the overtime hours from the voluntary team could not be counted as regular working hours when determining retirement benefits. The courts found that these extra hours were separate from the officer's normal duties and schedule. This decision matters for workers because it shows that not all overtime or extra work will automatically boost retirement benefits. Voluntary assignments or special duties may not count toward pension calculations, even if you're paid for the time. Workers should check their retirement plan rules carefully to understand exactly which hours and earnings will be included in their benefit calculations. What counts as "regular" work for pension purposes may be more limited than workers expect.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Marin Ass'n of Pub. Emps. v. Marin Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
Cal. SupremeNov 2016
Unresolvable
Marin Ass'n of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Ass'n
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 2016
Mixed Result
Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada
11th CircuitDec 2005
Remanded
Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.