News from Florida
|
Florida Supreme Court upholds pension reform law
Court: Florida Supreme Court
|
|---|
| On January 17, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 2011 law that requires state employees to contribute 3 percent of their salary to the state's pension fund. The 4-3 decision reversed a lower court ruling, eliminating the possibility of a $900 million refund to employees for money collected by the Florida Retirement System (FRS) since 2011.
The Florida Education Association (FEA), along with other state labor unions, challenged the 2011 law (Senate Bill 2100) soon after it was passed. They argued that employee pension benefits were under a contract and could not be changed without negotiations.
FEA President Andy Ford, stated:
| “
|
"Balancing the state budget on the backs of middle-class working families is the wrong approach for legislative leaders and the governor to take."[3][4]
|
”
|
Supporting the law was the state of Florida--specifically, the Governor, Attorney General, Chief Financial Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Management Services. Gov. Scott, following the Supreme Court's ruling, stated, "The court’s ruling today supports our efforts to lower the cost of living for Florida families."[3]
The lawsuit was appealed from the Second Circuit Court to the First District Court of Appeal. Both courts ruled in favor of the unions before being overturned by the Supreme Court.[5]
Writing for the majority, Justice Jorge Labarga explained:
| “
|
"The preservation of rights statute was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits for future service performed by all members of the FRS."[3][4]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Maryland
|
Maryland legislature seeks to mitigate pit bull ruling
Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
|
|---|
| Last year, the Maryland Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that declared all pit bulls were dangerous.[6][7][8] The ruling made pit bull owners responsible for any harm done by their dogs and also made landlords responsible for the dogs of their tenants, meaning that in some instances of attack or other damage, two parties would be held fully responsible.[6] The ruling spurred many pet surrenders and abandonments, as some landlords sought to remove pit bulls from their rental properties and other pet owners worried about liability.[7] The ruling has increased the number of pit bulls in the shelter and rescue system, while simultaneously making pit bulls harder to adopt.
The mitigation of the court ruling through legislation has become a popular cause among the public, with Democratic Representative Luiz R.S. Simmons noting that he has received more emails about this topic than any other during his time in office.[6] An emergency bill, filed in the house by two lawmakers on January 17, 2013, promises to spread responsibility for harm caused by all dogs equitably. The sponsors of the bill note that it is intended to be fair to landlords, dog owners, and dog bite victims.[6] The new bill would pertain to all dogs, unlike the Court of Appeals ruling which covers only pit bulls. Two similar bills were introduced in emergency sessions in the House and Senate last year, but both failed to pass. |
|
|
News from Missouri
|
Cardinals' manager Mike Matheny loses court battle, could owe millions
Court: Missouri 21st Judicial Circuit Court
|
|---|
| In a court battle arising from failed real estate investments, Judge Tommy W. DePriest, Jr. of the 21st Judicial Circuit Court in Saint Louis County, Missouri has ruled against St. Louis Cardinals manager Mike Matheny and his wife.[9]
Matheny's partnership borrowed over $11.8 million from the Business Bank of St. Louis and, in 2007, sought to develop a stretch of commercial property along Highway 40 in Chesterfield, Missouri, located west of St. Louis. At one point, Matheny and his wife personally guaranteed $4.2 million of the debt. However, after the real estate market crashed in 2008, the investment went south. Matheny "worked full time for a year to try to develop or sell the lots, with no luck."[10] In May 2010, Matheny told the bank that he would stop making payments on the loan because of his "need to protect [his] family's interest."[10] The bank sued Matheny and his partnership in June 2010, and foreclosed on the property in July, buying the land for $4.5 million and crediting that amount toward the partnership's loan.[10] He and his wife also sold their home for $1.9 million prior to its foreclosure, and gave $1 million of that amount to the bank.[11]
According to court records, Matheny's partnership still owes the bank at least $4.4 million, which Judge DePriest has ruled must be repaid. According to the judge's decision, neither the nationwide economic downturn nor the bank's decision to stop loaning money to Matheny relieved his obligation to repay the loan. The bank has 30 days to file a final bill, after which Matheny will have 15 days to respond to the bank's filing.[12] A hearing to determine the final judgment amount has been set for March 13, though the parties may find a resolution by then.[10]
Over the course of his major league career, Matheny has made almost $20 million.[11] This season, his salary is set at $750,000, but he says "he might need all of his investments and savings to pay off the bank debt."[10] Matheny has stated that he will not appeal the judge's ruling, as he wants to put this experience, which may cost him "his entire net worth," behind him.[10] |
|
|
News from Utah
|
Married military dad to get physical custody of his almost-illegally adopted daughter
Court: Utah Supreme Court
|
|---|
| When Terry Archane was transferred by the Army from Texas to South Carolina in 2011, his wife did not move with him. Archane, a sergeant, expected her to follow him soon, especially considering she had just learned she was pregnant with the couple's child. Unfortunately, (and shockingly to Archane) his wife, Tira Bland, decided to stay in Texas and to place the unborn child up for adoption. When he discovered her plans, he attempted to bring them to a halt but was unsuccessful.
Bland contacted the Utah adoption agency Adoption Center of Choice just days after her husband left for South Carolina to discuss placing her child for adoption. She told them her husband had abandoned her. The agency became aware that Archane did not consent to relinquish his parental rights to allow the baby girl to be adopted when he contacted the agency to stop the process. The agency nevertheless placed newborn Teleah with a Utah couple, Jared and Kristi Frei, almost immediately after her birth. Bland signed away her parental rights when the child was born and the agency and the Freis proceeded as if the intended adoption would be uncontested.
However, Archane was determined to raise his child. He filed suit seeking custody of his daughter. The Adoption Center of Choice and the Freis fought the suit all the way to the Utah Supreme Court. On January 18, 2013, the court ruled in favor of Archane, denying an emergency stay of a November 2012 court order forcing the Freis to return custody of Teleah to her father.[13] Archane is now expected to take custody of the nearly 2-year-old child within the next ten days and return with her to South Carolina.
An appeal is not out of the question, however, given the fight waged by the Freis to keep the child they have raised since birth. The court was clear, though: the parties need to do what is in the best interest of the child.[14]
This is not the first time a Utah adoption agency has gotten in hot water with a father who did not consent to, or have knowledge of, an adoption. In 2012, John M. Wyatt, III of Virginia filed suit against a Utah lawyer and adoption agency for placing his child with a Utah couple despite the fact he never consented to the adoption or relinquished his parental rights. Unlike the Archane case, though, Wyatt and the child's mother were not married. Wyatt's suit led to the Virginia Supreme Court recognizing a new cause of action in that state, tortious interference with parental rights.[15] Perhaps Archane will seek similar redress in Texas or Utah. |
|
|
