Glen L. Wittstadt, Jr. and Lynne M. Wittstadt - Page 5

                                        - 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                
               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