ALICE DESAI, as Independent Executor of the ESTATE OF PRAKESH DESAI, Claimant v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent
Case summary
Claimant sought to bind the State to pay higher retirement benefit estimates given by SURS employees. The court dismissed the claim, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was essentially a request for administrative review of SURS's final benefit calculation, which had already been litigated and affirmed through administrative and judicial proceedings.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a); 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5)
Cases cited: Desai v. SURS, 2014 IL App (4th) 130825-4
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
ORDER
MCGLYNN, J. This matter is before the Court on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a) and 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5).
Claimant is the widow of Prakesh Desai, a former employee of the University of IllinoisChicago (University) who participated in the State Universities Retirement System (SURS) from 1976 until his retirement in 2009.
Claimant, Alice Desai as Independent Executor for the Estate of Prakesh Desai, alleges that her husband, Dr. Prakesh Desai, requested and relied upon inaccurate, unequivocal retirement benefit estimates from individuals at the State Universities Retirement System (SURS). Dr. Desai has previously, unsuccessfully, sought a remedy through SURS, the Circuit Court of Champaign County, the Fourth District Appellate Court, and the Circuit Court of Cook County. The gravamen of the Complaint in this Court seeks a remedy to bind the State of Illinois to pay the higher, erroneous estimates given by SURS employees. Specifically, in 2003 and 2008, SURS employees allegedly advised Dr. Desai that if he continued to work through 2008, he would receive a SURS benefit of $10,710 upon retirement.
At Desai’s request, in February 2008, SURS provided Desai with another estimate, advising him he would receive a $10,710 monthly benefit beginning September 1, 2009, which SURS calculated using a monthly final rate of earnings of $18,685 and adjusted service credit of 33.75 years. The estimate contained the following equivocal disclaimer:
The figures contained in this letter are only estimates. This estimate assumes eligibility requirements are met. The figures are based on information provided by you and your employer and are assumed to be accurate for the purposes of this estimate. The final benefit calculation may be different due to errors, omissions, and future changes to the rules and law governing SURS. In addition, earnings and service are verified at retirement for accuracy. Where discrepancies exist, the verified figures will govern. The benefit to which you are entitled under the Illinois Pension Code will prevail over any estimates to the contrary.
(emphasis added). See Desai v. SURS, 2014 IL App (4th) 130825-4 2014, Pg. 3-4.
[*122] Claimant alleges, “On July 13, 2010, however, well after he had already retired in expectation of receiving the full benefit quoted by SURS, Dr. Desai was advised that he would be receiving a SURS monthly benefit of only $5,735.49.” SURS explained to Dr. Desai that the difference from the estimates was based on an adjustment SURS made in its final computation to his years of service to account for his part-time employment.
Thereafter, in July of 2010, Dr. Desai appealed the certified retirement benefit. In February of 2011, SURS denied his appeal. In March of 2011, Dr. Desai filed a petition for review before the SURS claims panel. In July 2012, SURS’ claims panel affirmed the $5,735.49 calculation, and in December 2012, the executive committee of SURS Board of Trustees affirmed the claims panel’s decision. Thereafter, Desai filed a petition for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Champaign County. Following a September 2013 hearing, the Court denied the petition, affirming the executive committee’s decision. Claimant appealed to the Fourth District Appellate Court. On May 15, 2014, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the executive committee of the State Universities Retirement Systems (SURS), concluding the executive committee did not err by finding 1.) SURS correctly calculated Dr. Desai’s annuity and 2.) SURS lacked authority under the Pension Code to provide Dr. Desai equitable relief.
Desai v. SURS, 2014 IL App (4th) 130825-4 2014.
Specifically, the Appellate Court held that it was not clearly erroneous for the executive committee to determine that SURS failed to take into account section 15-134.1 of the Pension Code when calculating Dr. Desai’s retirement estimates and that it later correctly calculated Dr.
Desai’s annuity based on section 15.134.1(b) of the Pension Code. The Appellate Court also held that the Pension Code provides no express authority for allowing the executive committee to provide Dr. Desai an equitable remedy for relying on SURS’ erroneous estimates. The Court concluded: “[I]t is not our place to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel where the legislature has not provided such a remedy.”
Notwithstanding the Appellate Court’s concluding statement on “equitable estoppel,” Claimant contends that the Appellate Court did not have the promissory estoppel or negligent misrepresentation claims before it when reaching its decision on May 15, 2014.
Claimant further contends that in September of 2014, the negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims were “re-filed” in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Claimant contends SURS filed a motion to dismiss in that proceeding arguing that the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over the negligent representation and promissory estoppel claims. Claimant asserts that the Circuit Court of Cook County “agreed” and, on January 27, 2016, dismissed the claims “with leave to file in the Court of Claims.” Thereafter, on March 7, 2016, Claimant filed the negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims in the Court of Claims.
Claimant did not appeal the ruling of the Fourth District Appellate Court to the Supreme Court and did not appeal the Cook County Circuit Court ruling to the First District Appellate Court. The Cook County Circuit Court cannot by order vest jurisdiction in the Court of Claims where no statutory jurisdiction exists.
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
*+)/9/549/95;:9/*+5,:./95;8:C90;8/9*/):/54
A#4*+8);88+4:2'=:.+542?9:':;:58?*+2+-':/545,';:.58/:?:5:./95;8:/99+:,58:./4 9+):/545,:.+5;8:5,2'/39):@".+0;8/9*/):/54'2'4'2?9/9'))58*/4-2?/9 9:8'/-.:,58='8**5+9:.+)2'/3,'22=/:./4:.+9)56+5,'4?5,:.+0;8/9*/):/54'2-8'4:9/49+):/54
6'89':.85;-.6'8/B 22:2
! 9:8'/-.:,58='8*8+</+=5,5;4:9'4*$8+<+'29:.'::.+?*545:,'22=/:./4 :.+9)56+5,'4?5,:./95;8:C90;8/9*/):/54'2-8'4:9/49+):/54 6'8'-8'6.':.85;-. 6'8'-8'6./"./95;8:.'98+6+':+*2?,5;4*:.':/:2')19A+7;/:'(2+0;8/9*/):/54B'4*/9A45: '5;8:5,+7;/:?'4*)'445:'225=)2'/39('9+*:.+8+54B 22:2': 22:2 5;4:9'4*$9++1 +7;/:'(2+8+2/+,=./)./9(+?54*:.+';:.58/:?5,:./95;8::5-8'4:
"5:.++>:+4:2'/3'4:/99++1/4-:5(/4*:.+!:':+/4+7;/:?58)54:8'):584+-2/-+4)+5, :.+8+68+9+4:':/<+9/4 '4* :./95;8:.'9459:':;:58?';:.58/:?:5-8'4:'8+3+*?9 :.+66+22':+5;8:9:':+*/4/:956/4/54A%&:/945:5;862')+:5'662?:.+*5):8/4+5,+7;/:'(2+ +9:566+2=.+8+:.+2+-/92':;8+.'945:685</*+*,589;).'8+3+*?B!5:55/:/945:5;862')+:5 58*+8!# !:56'?./-.+8(+4+,/:9:.'4685</*+*(?:.+2+-/92':;8+=.+8+!# !+3625?++9 3'*+3/9:'1+9/4+9:/3':/4-(+4+,/:9