Case Caption: Gallivan v. Government Employees Retirement SystemCase Number: SCT-CIV-2019-0056Date: 04/16/2025Author: Per CuriamCitation: 2025 VI 11Summary: The Honorable Jessica Gallivan appeals from the Superior Court’s April 26, 2019 opinion and order affirming in part and reversing in part a June 1, 2017 decision of the Government Employees Retirement System (“GERS”) Board of Trustees with respect to calculation of her judicial retirement benefits for service as a magistrate judge, as well as the determination of her refund for excess contributions. The Superior Court’s classification of Judge Gallivan as a Tier II member of the Judiciary for retirement purposes is affirmed, but the April 26, 2019 opinion and order with respect to how those Tier II benefits are calculated is reversed. The Superior Court possessed jurisdiction under the general writ of review statute to review the portion of the GERS Board’s decision pertaining to calculation of judicial retirement annuity. Although Judge Gallivan has not retired, she remains aggrieved by the June 1, 2017 decision because the date of her retirement is not entirely within her control and knowledge of her retirement benefits may impact her decision to seek reappointment to a second term as a Superior Court judge. On the merits, With respect to the merits, the determination of the Superior Court that Judge Gallivan is a Tier II member of the retirement system, but that the annuity accrual rates set forth in the Tier I statute remained in effect for Tier II members during the period in which the GERS Board failed to set the accrual rates in accordance with the Tier II statute, is affirmed. However, it is held here that the Superior Court committed numerous errors when it calculated Judge Gallivan’s annuity under the Tier I statute, including defining her term for retirement purposes as being four years rather than six years. Because Judge Gallivan would ultimately be entitled to the same or greater annuity under the 5-percent per year accrual rate established by the January 2015 resolution were it to be given retroactive effect than she would if her annuity were calculated under the Tier I statute, Judge Gallivan’s annuity should be calculated pursuant to the January 2015 resolution because it does not constitute a reduction in Judge Gallivan’s benefits. Therefore, the portion of the Superior Court’s April 26, 2019 opinion and order pertaining to the calculation of Judge Gallivan’s annuity is reversed, and it is directed that the June 1, 2017 decision of the GERS Board be affirmed on that subject, albeit for different reasons than those articulated by GERSAttachment: Open Document or Opinion