- 5 -
as requested and contracted for on the effective
documents, and that was subsequently carried out. The
fact that the amount and nature of the distribution was
the result of a choice had nothing to do with when it
had to be paid and was, i.e. after retirement as
requested and contracted for, thus satisfying the roll-
over requirement.
On June 10, 1993, respondent filed an answer (the Answer) to
the Petition. In the Answer, respondent admitted the first two
of the above-quoted paragraphs in the Petition and denied the
third.
C. Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment
On January 31, 1994, petitioners, again acting pro se, filed
a motion for summary judgment. In their motion, petitioners
argued that the Transfer Refund was made on account of
petitioner's retirement and not on account of petitioner's
election to transfer from the Retirement System to the Pension
System. The penultimate sentence of petitioners' motion stated
as follows: "But for his retirement, Mr. Wittstadt would not
have elected to receive the lump-sum payment and no such
distribution would have been made." Petitioners also alleged
that petitioner's election to transfer from the Retirement System
to the Pension System was invalid under Maryland State law.
On March 23, 1994, a hearing was conducted in Washington,
D.C., on petitioners' motion for summary judgment. At that time,
the parties indicated that they were attempting to obtain facts
and documents from the Maryland State Retirement Agency.
Respondent's counsel stated, in part, as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011