- 7 -
agreed and unagreed facts, but that petitioners had declined to
execute such stipulations. Petitioner confirmed this
representation, indicating that he thought such stipulations were
irrelevant to his motion.
Respondent's counsel then identified what he considered to
be two disputed factual matters: First, the effective date of
petitioner's election to transfer from the Retirement System to
the Pension System; and second, the reason why the Transfer
Refund was paid to petitioner.
Regarding the first disputed factual matter, respondent took
the position that the effective date of petitioner's election to
transfer from the Retirement System to the Pension System was
June 1, 1989, a date that preceded the effective date of
petitioner's retirement. In contrast, petitioner took the
position that the effective date of his election was July 1,
1989, a date that followed the final day of petitioner's
employment.
The second disputed matter involved causation; i.e., what
caused the State of Maryland to make the Transfer Refund to
petitioner. In this regard, respondent took the position that
the Maryland made the Transfer Refund because of petitioner's
election to transfer from the Retirement System to the Pension
System. In contrast, petitioner took the position that Maryland
made the Transfer Refund because of petitioner's retirement.
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