- 8 -
As previously indicated, petitioner took the position that
the effective date of his election to transfer from the
Retirement System to the Pension System came after the final day
of his employment. Petitioner's position in respect of this
issue was consequential for two reasons: First, because it
facilitated petitioners' principal argument that the Transfer
Refund was made because of petitioner's retirement; and second,
because it facilitated petitioners' ancillary argument that the
Transfer Refund was not made because of petitioner's election to
transfer from the Retirement System to the Pension System because
such election was invalid under Maryland State law.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court denied
petitioners' motion. The Court took this action essentially for
two reasons: First, and principally, because the record was so
incomplete so as to preclude a rational disposition of the case;
and second, because factual issues appeared to be in dispute.
Near the end of the hearing, the following colloquy took place
between the Court and petitioner:
THE COURT: * * * Mr. Wittstadt, at this point, I
am not clear what your position is with respect to the
stipulation of facts. But when this case was continued
last time, and as I understand it from respondent's
counsel that there are some documents, the Court does
not now have those documents. Without those documents,
I couldn't come close--let the Court finish--couldn't
come close to ruling in your favor on this motion.
A motion for summary judgment requires that there
be no genuine material issue of fact in dispute. So I
don't have any facts or certainly anywhere near
sufficient facts to rule in your favor. Even if you do
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