Appellate Decisions Released March 23, 2006
The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions or dispositional orders on March 23, 2006.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions on March 23, 2006, including the following, which were recommended for publication:
Borreson v. Yunto, holding that in an action to enforce a physical placement order, in which the petitioner establishes he has been unreasonably and intentionally denied periods of physical placement, he may recover attorney's fees.
Bilda v. County of Milwaukee, in which the Court addressed Bilda's challenge to the manner in which the County paid administrative, operational, and investment management costs associated with the Retirement System. Substantively, he claimed the County should have paid such expenses directly, instead of making a contribution in the projected amount of those costs into the retirement fund. The alleged result was a diminution in resources available to meet the obligations of the Retirement System amounting to, in plaintiffs' eyes, an unconstitutional Taking. Procedurally, he argued the County Board violated state law in not obtaining an actuarial report before modifying the funding structure of the Retirement System.
The Court rejected Bilda's procedural argument, finding the County substantially complied with the "actuarial report" requirement when the County Pension Study Commission received the actuary's projection that the proposed change would not materially affect the funding of the Retirement System.
On the substantive argument, the Court found that, while participating employees have a constitutionally protectable property interest in the benefits to which they are entitled, they do not have a property interest in determining exactly how the County fulfills its obligations. Because nothing in the adopted changes would decrease or impair their rights under the Retirement System, there could be no constitutionally-cognizable taking of a property right.
The Court affirmed the Circuit Court, finding (a) there was no constitutionally-protected property right and, even if there was, it had not been taken, and (b) no defect in the manner in which the County adopted its change to how it pays the administrative expenses of the Retirement System.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions on March 23, 2006, including the following, which were recommended for publication:
Borreson v. Yunto, holding that in an action to enforce a physical placement order, in which the petitioner establishes he has been unreasonably and intentionally denied periods of physical placement, he may recover attorney's fees.
Bilda v. County of Milwaukee, in which the Court addressed Bilda's challenge to the manner in which the County paid administrative, operational, and investment management costs associated with the Retirement System. Substantively, he claimed the County should have paid such expenses directly, instead of making a contribution in the projected amount of those costs into the retirement fund. The alleged result was a diminution in resources available to meet the obligations of the Retirement System amounting to, in plaintiffs' eyes, an unconstitutional Taking. Procedurally, he argued the County Board violated state law in not obtaining an actuarial report before modifying the funding structure of the Retirement System.
The Court rejected Bilda's procedural argument, finding the County substantially complied with the "actuarial report" requirement when the County Pension Study Commission received the actuary's projection that the proposed change would not materially affect the funding of the Retirement System.
On the substantive argument, the Court found that, while participating employees have a constitutionally protectable property interest in the benefits to which they are entitled, they do not have a property interest in determining exactly how the County fulfills its obligations. Because nothing in the adopted changes would decrease or impair their rights under the Retirement System, there could be no constitutionally-cognizable taking of a property right.
The Court affirmed the Circuit Court, finding (a) there was no constitutionally-protected property right and, even if there was, it had not been taken, and (b) no defect in the manner in which the County adopted its change to how it pays the administrative expenses of the Retirement System.
posted by Daniel Kelly at 6:50 PM
<< Home