Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Burlingame v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1989No. Appeal No. 2743 C.D. 1987Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the completion of the nomination beneficiary form together with certain parol evidence should be deemed legally sufficient for the Board to determine that an Option 1 designation should be honored. Although I have great sympathy for Cecelia and Jarvis and recognize the tragic circumstances of this case, I must reject the majority’s position. I do so for several reasons. First, I believe that the statute’s statement that an option designation form be in writing is clear. Second, while Mrs. Burlingame may have…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Estate of McGovern v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Dom v. State Employes' Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Myers v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Hargest v. State Employes' Retirement Board, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API