OK! Here’s some good news!!
The Illinois Appellate Court has reversed Judge Cohen’s dismissal of our audit & reconciliation claim for the last half of 2013.
In language that seems pretty definitive (and without even needing a hearing for arguments) the appellate court has reversed, and remanded to the circuit court “with directions to enter an order requiring the City to audit, reconcile and reimburse its retirees for the actual benefit costs for the period from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.”
We’ve attached the decision received this morning.
Some of the language will make your day:
¶ 21 The City contends that nothing in its letter shows an enforceable obligation to reconcile the estimated and actual costs for the period between July 1st and December 31, 2013, because that obligation ended on June 30, 2013.
Perhaps the City is motivated to make this stand based on the fact that, without reconciliation, it would have paid out $50 million less to the retirees over the life of the settlement agreement than was actually agreed upon. Regardless, since we have decided that the City did extend its obligations under the settlement agreement, its duty to reconcile and reimburse can hardly be questioned.
The City agreed to maintain the same benefit levels and the record is replete with evidence that the only way to ensure the City actually paid what it agreed to pay under the settlement agreement is by performing an audit. The reconciliation obligations are merely a mechanism to ensure that the City carried out its primary obligation under the settlement-its obligation to pay its required share of defined costs.
¶22 The City contends that we should not arrive at this result because the City lacked authority to extend the settlement agreement. The City points to the settlement agreement itself which states that it "shall not be amended, modified or supplemented, nor shall any of its provisions be deemed waived, unless by written agreement signed by the respective attorneys for the Parties."
¶ 24 The City is attempting to get away with committing itself to one thing and then doing another, which the court cannot countenance. The City agreed to extend the retirees then-current coverage allowing them to maintain the same benefits until the end of the year. Now, it is saying that it agreed to pay benefits, but not those that the retirees had when they received the City's letter, but instead the benefits they had before the City acknowledged in a settlement that it was not paying its required share of defined costs.
No reasonable argument can be made that the City did not obligate itself to pay benefits for the second half of 2013.
We cannot give our judicial imprimatur to the City paying the wrong amount.
All that the retirees seek is to audit what they were paid and make sure it complies with the percentage share that they contracted for --which they "maintained" for all of 2013.
And that is what they are entitled to.
¶26 Accordingly, we reverse. The case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter an order requiring the City to audit, reconcile, and reimburse its retirees for the actual benefit costs for the period from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Seems like things are starting to go our way.
Celebratory contributions to the war chest would be appreciated.
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
Posts
