Retired Firefighter Not Entitled to Advisory Opinion Confirming That He Can Name SNT as Pension Beneficiary

In a case involving a client of ASNP member Donald Vanarelli, a New Jersey appeals court rules that a retired firefighter's pension system does not have to confirm that he can name his son's supplemental needs trust as the contingent beneficiary of his pension because the pension system does not have the authority to issue "advisory opinions." Saccone v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System (Sup.Ct.N.J.App.Div., No. A-1537-09T2, Nov. 15, 2010).

Thomas Saccone, a retired New Jersey firefighter, asked the New Jersey Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS) for permission to name his severely disabled son's supplemental needs trust as the contingent beneficiary of his $4,2454.37 monthly pension. PFRS refused to allow Mr. Saccone to name the trust as a beneficiary because, as Attorney Vanarelli points out in a blog post describing the case, the PFRS claimed that only widows or children of a firefighter are entitled to the pension benefit and the statutory definition of a "child" does not include a trust.

Mr. Saccone appealed to the PFRS Board, which declined to rule on the merits of Mr. Saccone's request. Instead, the Board claimed that it could not issue an advisory opinion "to aid you in estate planning. The statutory requirements for payment of benefits . . . are adequately defined and require no further explanation as to the meaning of payments of the benefits upon Mr. Saccone's death." Mr. Saccone appealed the Board's decision to the court of appeals.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upholds the Board's decision, finding that "[t]he substantive issue raised by Saccone, whether a statute mandating compensation to a 'child' of a retiree in these circumstances should be read as permitting the retiree to designate a trust for that child instead, is clearly hypothetical since Saccone and his wife are still alive and his son may not be alive when Saccone dies. Consequently, the opinion he sought was clearly advisory . . . [t]he governing legislation contains no provision requiring or even permitting the Board to provide purely advisory opinions to retirees." Attorney Vanarelli notes that "[i]n my opinion, it is unjust that Mr. Saccone, who worked for 30 years as a public employee in the Newark fire department, cannot rest easy knowing that the estate plan he established for his severely disabled son, who is receiving SSI and Medicaid since he turned age 18 (now almost 40), is finalized. Why does he have to die not knowing if his sons critical public benefits are protected?"

For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Saccone-v.-Police-and-Firemens-Retirement-System.pdf