deposited Wills's retirement benefits into Mraz's personal bank account. 2
Apparently, this prompted Mraz to question how her mother's benefits had
been distributed, which allegedly led to her discovery that Wills had
received and squandered the PERS benefits distributed to Wills on her
behalf from 2003 through 2009.
Mraz filed a complaint against Wills, alleging fraud, theft,
conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. After learning that Wills is
judgment proof, Mraz then filed a complaint against PERS, alleging
breach of contract and "liability imposed by law." The district court
consolidated the two cases, and later dismissed PERS in an order certified
as final under NRCP 54(b).
Mraz appeals, arguing that the district court erred by
dismissing PERS because (1) PERS breached its statutory duty by
distributing Mraz's benefits to Wills and by failing to monitor Wills's
expenditure of her benefits and (2) PERS breached its contract with
Mraz's mother by failing to pay survivor benefits directly to Mraz, the
third-party beneficiary of Cynthia Mraz's employment contract. We
affirm.
I.
If a PERS member dies before she retires, her minor child is
entitled to dependent child survivor benefits until the child turns eighteen
or, if the child is enrolled as a full-time student, twenty-three. NRS
286.673(1)-(3). Dependent child survivor benefits are distinct from
2Wills and PERS question the accuracy of Mraz's allegations, but for
purposes of this appeal we "accept all factual allegations in the complaint
as true." Blackjack Bonding v. City of Las Vegas Mun. Court, 116 Nev.
1213, 1217, 14 P.3d 1275, 1278 (2000).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
survivor benefits paid to the PERS employee's designated beneficiary.
NRS 286.6767 addresses the latter and specifies that if a PERS member
dies before receiving her full benefits, PERS will make payments to the
survivor beneficiary that the member designates on "a form approved by
the Executive Officer." See NRS 286.6767(2). Although the PERS
member may designate an adult or a child, neither NRS 286.67675, which
addresses payments to survivor beneficiaries, nor the remainder of NRS
Chapter 286 addresses distribution of survivor benefits to minors. Instead,
the survivor benefits distribution statutes simply state that "the survivor
beneficiary of a deceased member [with at least ten years of service]. . . is
entitled to receive a monthly allowance . ." NRS 286.6768(1); NRS
286.67685(1). It is the latter category of benefits—designated beneficiary
survivor benefits, not dependent child survivor benefits—that are the
focus of this appeal.
Mraz maintains that PERS violated a statutory duty to her by
paying her designated-beneficiary benefits to her through her father. But
nothing in NRS Chapter 286 prohibits PERS from distributing a minor's
survivor benefits to his or her parent or guardian. 3 In fact, NRS
286.673(6), the only section in NRS Chapter 286 that specifically
addresses distribution of benefits to minors, provides that dependent child
survivor benefits "may be paid by the System to the child's . (a) Surviving
parent; or (b) Legal guardian." Mraz argues that the permission granted
in NRS 286.673(6) implies that the Legislature withheld such permission
as to other distributions to minors, implicitly requiring PERS to do more
3 Thisis not to say that the Legislature could not—or should not—
clarify to whom a minor's benefits are distributed or the process by which
PERS makes distributions to a minor.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
than simply distribute the benefits to the child's parent or guardian. We
disagree. "It is presumed that fit parents act in the best interest of their
children." St. Mary v. Damon, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 68, 309 P.3d 1027, 1035
(2013). Nothing in Chapter 286 obligates PERS to undertake to supervise
the minor's estate or a parent's expenditure of a minor beneficiary's
benefits, or to withhold distribution of benefits unless and until the minor
has reached majority. If the Legislature deemed fit to impose
responsibilities of this nature, it would have said so, not left the matter to
negative implication. Absent express statutory command, we decline to
infer such an obligation from the statute's silence on the subject. The
district court correctly dismissed Mraz's "liability imposed by law" claim
against PERS because PERS did not breach its statutory duties by
distributing Mraz's benefits by and through her biological father.
A pension is an element of compensation that is part of an
employment contract. Pub. Employees' Ret. Bd. v. Washoe Cnty., 96 Nev.
718, 722, 615 P.2d 972, 974 (1980). Once an employee "retires and all
conditions for his retirement benefits have been met," neither PERS nor
the Legislature may alter or impair his or her pension without impairing
the contractual obligation of the public employer. Nicholas v. State, 116
Nev. 40, 44, 992 P.2d 262, 265 (2000). Here, the district court correctly
dismissed Mraz's breach of contract claim against PERS because neither
Mraz nor her mother had an employment relationship with PERS. Even
assuming that a contractual right exists between Mraz and PERS,
moreover, Mraz still cannot sustain her breach of contract claim because
PERS's obligation to pay survivor benefits is statutory, not contractual,
and as we previously explained, PERS did not violate its payment
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(01 1947A e
obligations by making payments to Mraz's father while she was a minor.
Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Mraz's claim for breach
of contract.
In conclusion, we sympathize with Mraz's situation, but this
court cannot expand or modify statutory language to impose requirements
that the Legislature did not. Williams v. United Postal Servs., 129 Nev.,
Adv. Op. 41, 302 P.3d 1144, 1148 (2013). Therefore, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/c—Lca , C.J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirn
, J.
Saitta
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
Patti, Sgro & Lewis
Attorney General/Carson City
Woodburn & Wedge
Eighth District Court Clerk
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A