James J. Leonard - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          petitioner’s biweekly payroll checks through July 8, 2005.  Each            
          biweekly payment was to be $143.59.2                                        
               By letter dated June 12, 2000, petitioner was offered a                
          position in another operating division of GE, GE Sports Lighting            
          Systems, L.P. (GE Lighting).  Petitioner accepted this position             
          and began working at GE Lighting in the last week of June.  In              
          July 2000, petitioner changed his residence from Texarkana,                 
          Texas, to North Richland Hills, Texas, in order to be closer to             
          his workplace.                                                              
               By letter dated August 18, 2000, the GE Railcar benefits               
          administrator notified GE Investment Retirement Services that               
          petitioner’s employment with GE Railcar had been terminated and             
          that he had changed his mailing address.  The address listed in             
          this notification was the address of GE Lighting:  “8713 Airport            
          Freeway Suite 104, North Star Plaza, N. Richland Hills, TX                  
          76180”.  Petitioner’s quarterly retirement account statements               
          were sent to this address from September 2000 through March 2001.           
          In December 2000, GE Lighting changed to a different suite in the           
          same building, resulting in a change in petitioner’s employment             
          address.  Petitioner’s new address was not correctly recorded by            
          the GE Railcar plan, causing petitioner’s quarterly statements              


          2The promissory note that petitioner signed in order to                     
          obtain the loan states that petitioner “further agrees that the             
          loan is subject to the loan provisions contained in the Plan”.              
          These provisions are not in the evidentiary record in this case.            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011