IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
SHARLINE L ROGERS )CASE NO ST 2017 CV 00337
)
Plaintiff )
) ACTION FOR DECLARATORY
vs ) JUDGMENT
)
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES I RETIREMENT )
SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN )
ISLANDS and the GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES )
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE )
UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD OF )
TRUSTEES )
)
___.__.________Defew__&n_ts__)
Cite as 2022 VI Supel 52U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
{11 THIS MATTER is before the Court on
1 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment ( Motion for Summary
Judgment ) and Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment
( Memorandum ) filed on December 12 2018
2 Defendant Government Employees Retirement S) stem Board Of Trustees
(hereinafter The Board ’) Opposition To Plaintiff‘s Motion For Summary
Judgment and Memorandum OfLaw In Support Of The Board 3 Opposition To
Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment filed on January 25 2019
3 Defendant 5 [Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands]
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary filed on January 25 2019
4 Plaintiff’s Reply To The Government Employ ees [sic] Retirement System
Board Of Trusttees [sic] Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment filed
on February 7 2019 and
5 Plaintiff’s Reply To The Government Employees [sic] Retirement System s
l V I Code Ann tit 3 § 701 states [t]he 5) Stem created under this chapter shall have the powers and privileges of a
corporation subject as provided herem to the control of the Board of Trustees thereof and shall be known and
designated as the Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands In other words there is no
apostrophe ( ) after Employees
Rogers v GERS er a]
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 2 of 11
Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment filed on February 7 2019
112 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and order (1) the
Defendants to return the $16 139 00 paid by Plaintiff to GERS for her time at the District Court of
the Virgin Islands (2) the Defendants to provide an accounting of the amount of interest that
accrued during the period Defendants retained and had the use of Plaintiff’s funds; and (3) the
Defendants to pay to Plaintiff the amount of interest that actually accrued on the erroneously
collected payment of $16 139 00
I INTRODUCTION
113 On July 27 2017 Plaintiff Sharline L Rogers ( Rogers ) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Government Employees Retirement System of the United States Virgin Islands
( GERS ’), the Government Employees Retirement System of the United States Virgin Islands
( the Board ) Defendant Austin L Nibbs in his capacity as Administrator/CEO of GERS and
Defendant Wilbur K Callender in his capacity as Chairperson of the Board 2 On August 3 2017,
Rogers filed an Amended Complaint removing ing Mr Nibbs and Mr Callender as Defendants 3
114 Rogers states that she was employed by the District Court of the Virgin Islands from
September 1990 through August 1993 and in 2004 she inquired with GERS whether she might
be able to receive credited service towards her GERS retirement fund for the time she was
employed at the District Court of the Virgin Islands 4 Rogers was informed by letter dated February
27, 2006 that she could make contributions for her non credited service up to $16 139 00, which
Rogers elected to do through payroll deductions and a payment in May 2007 and July 2007 until
the full $16 139 00 was paid off Rogers was then informed by letter dated August 23 2016 that
a GERS employee had made an error in allowing Rogers to be credited for her District Court
employment and Rogers subsequently requested a refund of the $16 139 00 along with a 9% per
annum interest rate pursuant to V 1 CODE ANN tit 3 § 951(a) 6
115 On September 28 2016 the GERS Administrator indicated GERS would return the
money at 2% interest, given GERS authority to set the interest rate a member receives when he
or she withdraws from service pursuant to 3 V I C § 713(a) 7 Rogers informed the GERS
Administrator in an October 7 2016 letter that she was not withdrawing from service, so the 2%
interest rate was not applicable 8 Rogers argues that because even GERS admits that [t1here is no
provision in title 3 Virgin Islands Code chapter 27 that sets the rate of interest that is due on
P1 sCompl 1
Pl sAm Compl 1
4 Pl 5 Mem 2
3 P1 3 Mem 2
6 Pl 5 Mem 3
7 Pl 5 Mem 3
8 Pl 5 Mem 3
Rogers v GERS et a]
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 3 0f 11
monies contributed to the [GERS] for non credited [service] on GERS erroneous[] advice that it
was permissible,’ the provision in 11 V I C § 951(a) controls 9 That provision provides that the
rate of interest shall be nine percent (9%) per annum on all monies which become due 10
116 Rogers also argues that she is due prejudgment interest, both under 11 V I C §951(a) and
as an equitable remedy under a theory of unjust enrichment ” Rogers calculates that at her 9%
interest rate she is due a total of $32 150 28 which is $16 217 21 plus interest of $15 993 21 '2
The $16 217 21 amount was calculated by adding a 2007 payment total of $14 400 90 to the 2006
payment total of$1 816 31 13
117 GERS admits that it informed Rogers through a February 27 2006 letter that total
contributions due to the system for non credited time at the District Court, WAPA, and the Virgin
Islands Legislature was $16 139 00 '4 GERS disputes that this total only reflects Rogers non
credited service for her employment at the District Court 1‘ GERS states in subsequent
correspondence it informed Rogers that several errors were made by the staff of GERS Member
Services in calculating her non credited time and that she was never eligible to receive credited
time for her service with the U S District Court '6 GERS further states that in response to Rogers
September 9 2016 letter requesting a refund and [p]ursuant t0 Resolution No 09 2009 ’ GERS
determined that it would refund Rogers the sum of $16 139 00 at a two percent (2%) interest rate 17
GERS states that on May 10 2017 GERS sent Rogers a check for $23 404 44 which was rejected
by Rogers on June 6 2017 ‘8
118 GERS states that its employees were improperly applying a 1966 law that allowed federal
employees who moved to the territorial government to get credit towards their retirement fund for
their federal employment ‘9 The law which became 3 V I C § 704(h) had a sunset provision that
voided the law after three (3) years, although it was not removed from the code until Act no 6794
in 2005 after Rogers first inquiry but before her second inquiry 20 GERS states that the first issue
of material fact is Rogers’ misinterpretation of the February 27 2006 letter, which calculated the
missing contributions for her entire case and not just the U S District Court time 2‘ GERS states
that only $10 947 06 should be refunded reflecting her District Court time as the total $16 139 00
9 Pl 5 Mem 4
'0 11 VIC §951(a)
“ Pl 5 Mem 9 l7
'7 Pl 5 Mem 19
‘3 Pl 5 Mem n 17
‘4 Def 3 Opp n 4
‘3 Def 3 Opp n 2
1" Def 5 Opp n 4
17Def sOpp n4 6
‘8 Def 5 Opp n 6
‘9 Def 3 Opp n 7
7" Def 3 Opp n 8
7‘ Def’s Opp n 8
Rogers v GERS e! (11
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 4 of 11
amount was calculated also looking at her time at ‘WAPA and the V I Legislature ”22
119 GERS further argues that the only allowable interest payments are when a non vested
member leaves the system and that there are no other provisions in the code relating to refunds
which shows the Legislature 5 clear intent that interest should not be given for other instances of
refunds such as an over payment 23 GERS states that there is no statutory authority for interest
on an overpayment of contribution and 11 V I C § 951 does not apply because none of its
requirements has been met, since there is a discrepancy as to when the contract between the
government and the plaintiff actual [sic] begins 24
1110 GERS cites to Kendall i The Supet 10} Court ofthe VI 2‘ where the Court ruled that money
does not become due under the retirement contract until a person has applied for an annuity
therefore, no money has become due and 11 V I C § 951 is not applicable 26 Further, since the
duty created by the contract is to provide payment of retirement annuities and the time of
performance has not yet arrived there is no breach of the contract 27 GERS argues that Rogers
cannot succeed on an unjust enrichment claim because a contract exists and unjust enrichment is
an equitable remedy and thus it would be inappropriate to apply it because a legal remedy exists 28
GERS also argues that a nine percent (9%) interest rate is extremely exorbitant” and that GERS
is responsible for securing the financial future of its members and their beneficiaries’ so [a]ny
amount awarded will reduce the ability of GERS to fund annuities 2° Lastly GERS argues that
the ERISA’ statute is not applicable to GERS and therefore cases cited by Rogers that feature
ERISA have no bearing on the case 30
1111 The Board argues that while there is no other mention of refund in the GERS enabling
statute the spirit of § 7l3(a) was meant to address refunds generally ’ and as the only section that
explicitly addresses refunds in chapter 27 the regular interest set by the Board pursuant to that
section is the interest rate to be used when returning refunds 3‘ The Board also argues that
prejudgment interest should not be granted because exceptional and unusual circumstances exist”
making the award inequitable 32 These circumstances include the mistake by the GERS member
who informed Rogers she could receive non credited service for work at the District Court GERS
is currently experiencing financial strain and such an award may adversely affect members
Def 5 Opp n 8
Def 5 Opp n 9 10
4Def sOppn 10 ll
5 Civil No 2010109 201.: U S Dist LEXIS 27320 (D V I 2013)
6Def sOpp n1213
’7 Def 5 Opp n13
’3 Def 5 Opp n14
9 Def 5 Opp n 15
0 Def 3 Opp n 16
" Def Board 5 Opp n 5
’7 Def Board 5 Opp n 6
Rogers v GERS et a!
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 5 of 11
including Rogers and the 2% interest is just and equitable as it is the current rate set by GERS 3’3
{[12 The Board also argues that Rogers and GERS entered into a contract upon the payment of
$16 139 00 whereby Rogers received service credit towards retirement the time for performance
was not ascertained, and the contract was silent as to damages 34 The Board states that because the
law is silent on damages the Court should apply the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 354(2),
which states that such interest may be allowed as justice requires on the amount that would have
been just compensation had it been paid when performance was due 3‘
1113 The Board further argues that if the Court is persuaded by Rogers unjust enrichment claim
the Court should follow the example outlined in Addie t Kajer36 where when performance on a
contract is discharged because of impracticability frustration of performance non occurrence of
a condition or disclaimer the party receives back whatever benefit the party has already
conferred 37 The Board states that Rogers has conferred $16 139 00 to GERS and thus an adequate
remedy under unj ust enrichment is the return of this money to Rogers 38
1114 In her Reply Rogers says that GERS acknowledges that in 2004 when [she] inquired
about receiVing credited service for her District Court of the Virgin Islands employment it was
the GERS s practice to grant credited service for employment with the federal government ’ and
that it appears that this practice continued until 2015 39 Second Rogers states that there is
absolutely no indication in Ms Holder 3 letter that the $16 139 [Rogers] paid included missing
contributions from the District C ourt of the Virgin Islands the Virgin Islands Water and Power
Authority and the Legislate [sic] of the Virgin Islands as the letter sets forth her entire
employment history even projecting [Rogers ] employment with the Legislature of the Virgin
Islands to a future date ’ and that “[a]t a subsequent meeting with Mrs Holder which is evidenced
in the February 27 2005 correspondence from Mrs Holder, Mrs Holder advised [Rogers] that
[Rogers] would have to pay $16,139 to the GERS to receive credited service for [Rogers’]
employment at the District Court ”40
1115 Further Rogers asserts that the Authorization she executed for non credited service
specifies that she was authorizing the GERS to start payroll deductions for payment of [her] non
credited service time to pay off [her] prior service balance 0f$16 139 00 4‘ Rogers also states
that there is no provision in the Virgin Islands Code that allows for interest on contributions made
erroneously to the GERS because there will not be a provision [prOViding] for interest for a
Def Board 5 Opp n 6
4 Def Board 5 Opp n 7
’ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 354(2) (1981) Def Board 3 Opp n 7
6 757 F 3d 854 (2013)
3” Def Board 5 Opp n 9
’3 Def Board 5 Opp n 10
9 Pl 5 Reply 1
40 P1 5 Reply 2
4‘ Pl 5 Reply 2 3
Rogers v GERS er a!
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 6 of 11
particular circumstance if the Legislature of the Virgin Islands did not anticipate such an
occurrence ’42
1116 Rogers agrees that GERS has not breached its duty to [Rogers] to provide [Rogers] with
a retirement annuity, a disability annuity or any other benefit’ but, rather, Rogers contends and
the GERS Board of Trustees has acknowledged that the GERS and [Rogers] entered into a contract
whereby [Rogers] would pay the GERS $16 139 and [Rogers] would receive credited service for
the District Court employment ”43 Rogers states therefore that pre judgment interest is awardable
to her as well as the nine percent (9%) rate of interest on money due when there is a breach of a
contract with no agreed upon contractual rate 44 Lastly Rogers states that she does not contend
that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases are controlling but rather, Rogers
states she cites to them for illustrative purposes 4‘
II LEGAL STANDARD
A Summary Judgment
1117 Summary Judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure
which states
A party may move for summary judgment identifying each claim or defense or
the part of each claim or defense on which summary judgment is sought The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the
motion 46
1118 Or as the Virgin Islands Supreme Court stated in Antilles School Inc v Lembach,47
summary judgment is appropriate when after considering all of the evidence accepting the
nonmoving party 5 evidence as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party the court concludes that a reasonable jury could only enterjudgment in favor of
the moving party ’ 48
1119 Summary judgment is a drastic remedy ’ and only proper where the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file show that there is no genuine issue as to material
4 Pl 5 Reply 3
4 Pl 5 Reply 3 4
44 PI 5 Reply 4
45 Pl 5 Reply 4 5
46VI CIV P 56(a)
47 64 V I 400 (V I 2016)
48 Id at 409
Rogers v GERS e! a]
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 7 0f 11
fact[ ] ’49 The nonmoving party must show in its response to a motion for summary judgment that
there are “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial ’ 30 In addition, ‘[t]he non moving party
may not rest upon mere allegations but must present actual eVidence showing a genuine issue for
trial Such evidence may be direct or circumstantial but the mere possibility that something
occurred in a particular way is not enough[ ] ’5‘ For a nonmoving party to show some genuine issue
of material fact for trial the nonmoving party may not rest on its allegations alone but must
present actual evidence amounting to more than a scintilla,’ in support of its position 32 Further
[i]f the non movant offers evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative
summary judgment may be granted " Finally the ‘ Court may not itself weigh the evidence and
determine the truth; rather we decide only whether there is a genuine issue for trial such that a
reasonable jury could return a Verdict for the non moving party 34
B Government Employees’ Retirement System, Refunds, Interest
fil20 On June 24 1959 the Virgin Islands Legislature established a retirement and benefit
system for officials and employees of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and for
their dependents and beneficiaries for the payment of retirement annuities disability annuities
and other benefits to said officials and employees and to their dependents and
beneficiaries[ ]’ 3‘ “The responsibility for the proper operation of the System and for making
effectiVe the provisions of this chapter is vested in the Board of Trustees” which is composed of
seven (7) members ‘6 Title 3 § 713(a) of the Virgin Islands Code establishes how a government
employee may receive a refund from GERS and it reads in its entirety
Upon withdrawal from service any member who does not have ten years of
credited service and is not then eligible for a service retirement annuity shall be
entitled to receive a refund of the accumulated contributions plus regular
interest including contributions made by the member to any superseded
retirement System Any member withdrawing from service who does not receive
a refund and later returns to service shall receive credit for the amount ofcredited
service in force at the time of his withdrawal from service Any member
receiving a refund shall thereby waive and relinquish all accrued rights in the
System including all accrued credited service The System may in its discretion
withhold payment of a refund for a period not to exceed one year after receipt
49 Anthony v FtrstBank IIrgm Islands 58 V I 224 228 (V I 2013) (quoting Williams v United Com 50 V I 191
194 (v1 2008))
50 Ihllzams 1 Lmted Corp 50 V I 191 194 (V I 2008) (quoting FED R CW P 56(6))
1 Id at 229 (quoting Williams 50 V I at 194 95)
57 Anderson v American Fed n of Teachers 67 VI 777 789 (V I 2017) (quoting Pere v R1! Carlton (I ugm
Islands) Inc
59 VI 522 527 28 (VI 2012))
3 Pemberton Sales & Sew v Banco Popular de P R
877 F Supp 961 965 (D V I 1994)
4 WIllzams 50 V I at 195 (citing Anderson v Lzbert) Lobb) Inc 477 U S 242 255 (1986))
i 3 V I C 701(a)
6 .3 v I C 715(a)
Rogers v GERS et a]
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 8 of 11
of an application from a member If no specific request to the contrary is made
by a member within 30 days from the date of his separation from the service the
System may, in its discretion refund the accumulated contributions of any
member who has less than 3 years of credited service notwithstanding that such
member may not have applied for a refund ‘7
1121 Regular interest” is defined in 3 V I C § 702(k) as interest at such rate as shall be
determined by the Board from the experience ofthe system which shall be not less than two percent
nor more than four percent per annum "8 In the case of In the Maria ofGallzvan i G01 tEmples
Retirement S'ys ‘9 the Board refunded Magistrate Judge Gallivan for GERS overcharges over the
period from January 2015 through the pay period ending May 27 2017 and for interest on the
overcharges[ ]” 60 Like in the instant case, Judge Gallivan had argued that she was entitled to 9%
interest under 11 V I C § 951, while GERS in that case argued it did not have to pay pre judgment
interest because 5 V I C § 426(b) prevents the Government of the Virgin Islands from having to
pay pre judgment interest 61
1122 The Board made a similar argument In the Matter 0/ Calla an to the one the Board makes
here arguing that there is no provision that pfOVidCS for the rate of interest on refunds for
overpayment but § 762(a) is close enough and the interest to be proxided should be the same as
outlined there 62 However In the Matte; of Gallivan the Court ruled that the Board erred in
determining that the refund rate described in 3 V I C § 762(a) applies to a refund for a member s
overpayments in contributions to GERS due to GERS overcharges 63 The Court ruled that Judge
Gallivan was instead entitled to receive a refund of her overpayments and accrued interest on a
restitution theory measured by defendant 3 unjust gain, not by the plaintiff s loss ’64 The Court
ruled that [o]n a theory of restitution Judge Gallivan is entitled to a refund for contribution
overpayments and GERS interest gains but not losses—on those overpayments 63
III ANALYSIS
1123 The parties do not dispute that Rogers paid $16 139 00 to GERS for prior non credited
service at the District Court and that this payment was based off an erroneous interpretation of the
Virgin Islands Code While GERS disputes in its Opposition that this amount solely reflects
Rogers work at the District Court both parties agree that Rogers paid this amount, requested it be
‘73 VIC 713(a)
8 3 v 1 C 702(k)
9 2019 V I Super 62
6° Id am} 52
6‘ [d at 11 53 The Court did not address the issue of pre judgment interest be) 0nd stating this argument from GERS
so the Court will address it below as applied to this case
6 Id at W 54 57
6 1d at 11 58
64 [d at 11 59
65 1d at 11 62
Rogers v GERS et (11
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 9 of 11
returned and GERS attempted to return it only to have Rogers return the money as the issue of
the correct interest rate was not resolved
1R4 As there are no material facts in dispute this case is ripe for summary judgment The Court
will grant Rogers Motion For Summary Judgment insofar as she requests GERS be made to
disgorge funds which rightfully belong to her The Court will not assess a 9% interest rate or
prejudgment interest but, rather it will follow the holding from In the Matter ofGalevan and order
the funds be returned to Rogers along with any monies that were gained by GERS from a positive
investment rate of return
A Rogers is not entitled to 9% interest or prejudgment interest on her erroneous non
credited service payment
$125 The Court is not persuaded that 11 V l C § 951 is applicable to the instant case While it
is accurate that the Legislature only included in the statute an interest rate to be applied to refunds
provided b) GERS after retirement it is also true that the Legislature omitted from the statute any
process for GERS to provide any refund before retirement Thus if the Legislature was indicating
through omission its desire to only apply the regular interest rate to retirement refunds and not
any others it can equally be said the Legislature was indicating through omission its desire for
GERS to not provide an} refunds until retirement Further it would seem counter to the
Legislature s desire to limit the interest rate assessed on GERS payments to between 2% and 4%
if all an employee had to do to receive a much higher 9% interest rate is request a refund of their
payments any time before or right up to retirement
1126 Further, there has been no breach or violation of GERS’ contractual commitment to Rogers
GERS duties and obligations to Rogers, and the prerequisites Rogers must meet to qualify for
them, are plainly laid out in 3 V l C § 713(a), paramount among them is the requirement that the
employee has withdrawn from service Rogers has not yet withdrawn from service Nor is the
Court persuaded that the Authorization Of Payroll Deduction For Non Credited Service Time form
created a new, separate contract between GERS and Rogers The form merely directs GERS how
to do something it is already required to do under its preexisting agreement with Rogers deposit
fimds from her paycheck into a retirement fund Further the deductions are explicitly for ‘non
credited service time’ and as GERS makes clear federal employment does not count as service
time that can be credited Even if the Authorization form established a new contract as both
parties were mistaken as to a key material fact of the contract namely that District Court
employment counts as ‘service time there is a mutual mistake which would render the supposed
agreement voidable
{[27 Lastly Title 5 § 426(b) of the Virgin Islands Code states that [n]otwithstanding the
provisions of title 1 1 section 951(a)(1) and title 33 section 3408(a) of this code or any other law
pre judgment interest shall not be charged against the Government of the Virgin Islands on any
Rogers v GERS et a!
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 10 of 11
judgment or decree for the payment of money by the Government 66 GERS is an ‘independent
and separate agency of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands 67 As stated above §
951(a)(1) is not applicable in this situation, and since Rogers points to no other law or provision
granting an exception to § 426(b) pre judgment interest may not be assessed against GERS in this
case
B Rogers is entitled to a refund of the $16,139 00, as well as any interest actually
accrued on those contributions
$128 Rogers, however, is entitled to the return of the $16 139 00 paid to GERS as well as any
interest that actually accrued under a theory of restitution No party disputes that Rogers is owed
the money and indeed there have been prior attempts to return this money to Rogers before
litigation commenced What is disputed is how much interest is owed to Rogers While GERS
argues Rogers is not entitled to an unjust enrichment claim because there is a contract, the contract
did not anticipate a GERS employee erroneously telling a contributor that she may receive
credited service time for employment with the federal goyernment GERS has no claim to this
money under the agreement between Rogers and GERS as GERS may only consider service time
with the territorial, and not federal government Further GERS has retained these funds for over
a decade during which inflation has lessened its principal value GERS has had an opportunity to
make a profit from these funds and GERS has denied Rogers an opportunity to a profit from these
funds Thus, equity demands that Rogers not simply receive the principal amount since it has been
held by GERS for so long
1129 Moreover given the Court 5 ruling and analysis In the matte) 0f Gallivan, which dealt
largely with an analogous situation under a theory of restitution the interest owed to Rogers is
whatever the actual interest was that accrued upon the overpaid funds during the period in which
GERS retained Rogers’ funds Thus if investments made by GERS with $10,000 had resulted in
a gain of $500 Rogers would be entitled to the full $10 500 However, as stated [n the matter of
Gallzvan this amount is only to include interest gains not losses 68 Therefore GERS will be
ordered to provide the Court with a current and up to date accounting of how much interest
actually accrued on the $16 139 00 The period of calculation shall be between July 10 2007, When
GERS fully received this amount and the date of entry of judgment consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion 69
IV CONCLUSION
1130 Plaintiff Sharline L Rogers filed suit on July 27 2017 against GERS and its Board of
(’6 5 V l C §426(b)
(’7 3 V l C 715(a)
(’8 2019 VI Super 62 1] 63 ( On a theory of restitution Gallivan is entitled to a refund for contribution overpayments
and GERS interest gains but not losseswon those overpayments )
69 Pl 5 Mem 2
Rogers v GERS et a]
Case No ST 2017 CV 00337
Memorandum Opinion
Page 11 0f 11
Trustees seeking a refund on payments erroneously made into the GERS retirement trust fund on
the belief that she would be credited service time for her employment with the federal government
at the District Court of the Virgin Islands
1131 Neither party disputes that Rogers made these payments or that they were erroneous Since
Rogers has not yet retired no refund on payments are statutorily due to her under 3 V I C § 713(a)
However, as the Court reasoned In the matter of Gallnan Rogers is entitled to a reimbursement
of her erroneous payments under a theory of restitution, along with any interest that actually
accrued during the time GERS retained the funds Therefore the Court will order (1) the
Defendants to return the $16 139 00 paid by Rogers to GERS for her time at the District Court of
the Virgin Islands (2) the Defendants to provide an accounting of the amount of interest that
accrued during the period Defendants retained and had the use of Robers funds and (3) that the
Defendants pay to Rogers the amount of interest that actually accrued on the erroneously collected
$16 139 00
A judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion follows
DATED MayZZ 2022 giggggggw 22mm
DENISE M F NCOIS
Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
TA RA CHA ES
Cler o e Cmm
B a W
DON A D DONG 1%
Com Llerk buperxisor / (19%}