2013-0620, Scott Anderson & a. v. Executive Director, New Hampshire Retirement System & a.

Superior Court (McNamara, J.) granting summary judgment to the DALIANIS, C. J. Petiti oner Scott Anderson appeals an order of the

general, on the brief and orally), for the State. Joseph A. Foster, attorney general (Richard W. Head, ass ociate attorney

Retirement System. on the brief and orally), for respondent Executive Director, New Hampshire Getman, Schulthess & Steere, P.A., of Manchester (Andrew R. Schulman

orally), for petitioner Scott Anderson. Upton & Hatfield, LLP, of Portsmouth (Russell F. Hilliard on the brief and

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE RETIRE MENT SYSTEM & a.

No. 2013 - 620 Merrimack

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh. us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

employer. Thereafter, the petitioners moved for summary judgment, and the NHRS employers, even if he does not work full - time hours for any single NHRS thirty - two hours per week or 1,300 hours per year for any combination of vested right because its effect is to restore him to service if he works more than Anderson con tended that the p. 2 2012 amendment substantially impaired his become a member of the [NHRS] and . . . shall contribute” to that system. “restored to service,” hi s “retirement allowance shall cease,” and he “shall again defined in RSA 100 - A:1, XXX I V. Under RSA 100 - A:7, when a retiree is thus, lose his retirement benefits if he worked more than “[p] art - time” as amendment, he would be “restored to service” under RSA 100 - A:7 (2013) and, Constitution. Specifically, he asserted that, as a result of the 2012 amendment to him violated Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire declaratory and injunctive relief. Anderson contended that to apply the 2012 In August 2012, A nderson and three other NHRS retirees petitioned for

(emphasis added). 1,300 hours in a calendar year. Laws p. 2 2012, 194: 5 (the 2012 amendment) the work hours in some weeks exceed thirty - two hours, then no more than me mber which shall not exceed 32 hours in each normal calendar week,” or if employment during a calendar year by one or more employers of the retired “[p]art - time,” for the purposes of employin g a NHRS retire e, “means In 2012, the legislature amended RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV to provide that

hours per week for Hampstead.” per week for Plaistow, up to 3 p. 2 2 hours per week for Atkinson, and up to 32 understood that provision “to mean [he] could work potentially up to 32 hours hours i n a calendar year.” Laws 2011, 248:2 (emphasis added). Anderson hours in some weeks exceeded thi rty - two h ours, then no more than “1,300 employer” of no more than “32 hours in a normal calendar week,” or if the work purposes of employing a NHRS retiree meant, “employment by an [NHRS] When he retired, RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV provided that “[p]art - time,” for the

police officer in Plaistow, Atkinson, and Hampstead. Anderson retired in November p. 2 2011. After retiring, he worked part - time as a becomes a “beneficiary” within the meaning of the applicable statutes). N.H. ___, ___ (decided August 8, 2014) (at retirement, a member of the NHRS police officer who was a member of the NHRS. See Appeal of Eskeland, 166 The record est ablishes the following facts. Anderson is a retired Plaistow

CONST. pt. I, art. p. 2 2 p. 3 3. We affirm. as applied to him is not an u nconstitutional retrospective law. See N.H. that the trial court erred when it determined that RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV (2013) other petitioners. Anderson is the only petitioner who appealed. He argues (NHRS) and the State, and denying summa ry judgment to Anderson and three respondents, the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Retirement System 3

when he or she works more than “[p] art - time,” as defined in RSA 100 - A:1, contends that a NHRS retiree is “restored to service” pursuant to RSA 100 - A:7 opinion as to whether he correctly interprets the applicable statutes when he Because we have resolved Anderson’s appeal in this way, w e express no

NHRS empl oyer. up to thirty - tw o hours per week or 1, p. 3 300 hours per year for more than one appeal, when he retired in 2011, he had no right, vested or otherwise, to work plural “one or more employers.” Thus, contrary to Anderson’s contentions on employer,” the legislature intended the singular “an employer” to include the words, although the pre - 2012 version of RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV referred to “an Mountain Forest Ass’ n v. Town of Croydon, 119 N.H. 202, 205 (1979). In other evidence of the legislative intent concerning the original enactment.” Blue circumstances, the 2012 amendment to RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV is “strong www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0244. Under those retirement system.” Senate Bill 244, available at “clarify[ing] recent changes to the administration of the New Hampshire “an employer” to “one or more employers” in 2012, it stated th at it was merely construction is consistent with legislative intent. When t he legislature changed In the instant case, the 2012 amendment makes clear that such

or rep ugnant to the context of the same statute,” RSA 21:1 (2012). construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature and be applied to several persons or things,” RSA 21: p. 3 3 (2012), “unless such construing all statutes, “[w] ords importing the singular number may extend year for any one such employer. However, t he legislature h as provided that in retiree did not work more than thirty - two hours per week or 1,300 hours per 1,300 hours per year for any number of municipal employers as long as the employers,” it allowed a reti ree to work up to thirty - two hours per week or of RSA 100 - A:1, XXXIV refers to “an employer” instead of “one or more only when necessary). Anderson contends that because the pre - 2012 version N.H. 339, 345 (1997) (noting that we decide cases on constitutional grounds interpretation of the underlying statutes. See Olson v. Town of Fitzwilliam, 142 2012 am endment because we conclude that it rests upon a mistaken We do not reach the merits of Anderson’s constitutional challenge to the

7 p. 3 34 (201 1) (quotation omitted). matter of law.” State Employees’ Assoc. of N.H. v. State of N.H., 161 N.H. 730, exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a its capacity as the nonmoving party and, if no genuine issue of material fact judgment, “we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in In reviewing the trial court’ s rulings on cross - motions for summary

favor, and Anderson’s appeal followed. State cross - moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in the State’s p. 4 4

HICKS, CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.

intent. NHRS, see RSA 100 - A:1, VII (2013). W e invite the legisl ature to clarify its XXXIV, but fewer than the full - time hours required for membership in the