STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID ORTMANN (L-1208-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1530-18T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID ORTMANN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued March 16, 2020 – Decided April 8, 2020
Before Judges Sumners and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-1208-18.
Charles Joseph Sciarra argued the cause for appellant
(Sciarra & Catrambone, LLC, attorneys; Frank
Carmen Cioffi, of counsel and on the briefs).
Lauren Bonfiglio, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Lauren Bonfiglio, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant David Ortmann appeals from that portion of a Law Division
order compelling the forfeiture of his entire pension earned while employed as
a Jersey City police officer for over twenty-seven years. The court based its
forfeiture decision on the fact that Ortmann pled guilty to a federal information
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to conspiracy
to defraud the United States of America, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, for
accepting over $12,000 in payments from Jersey City for work he admitted he
did not perform. Ortmann raises the following related constitutional points on
appeal:
POINT I
THE COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THIS
MATTER AS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
THE POLICEMEN AND FIR[E]MEN RETIREMENT
SYSTEM HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER
OPERATION OF THE PENSION FUND.
POINT II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT HAD
PROPER JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER,
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT
AN[] EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS N.J.S.A. 43:1-
3.1 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPELLANT
HAS BEEN DENIED HIS STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
A-1530-18T2
2
A. N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 DEPRIVES
APPELLANT OF HIS PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
B. APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE ALSO BEEN
VIOLATED AS APPELLANT IS BEING
DEPRIVED OF A PROPERTY
INTEREST IN THE FORM OF HIS
VESTED RETIR[E]MENT PENSION
BENEFITS WITH THE STATE'S
PENSION FUND.
POINT III
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT
DOES NOT FIND THAT N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 […]
VIOLATE[D] OFFICER ORTMANN'S DUE
PROCESS RIGHT[S], IF THE COURT APPLIED
THE BALANCING TEST AND FACTORS APPLIED
IN URICOLI,[1] THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE
ORDERED A COMPLETE FORFEITURE OF
APPELLANT'S PENSION.
We disagree with all of Ortmann's arguments and affirm substantially for
the reasons detailed in Judge Mary C. Jacobson's thoughtful and
comprehensive September 25, 2018 oral decision. We provide the following
comments to amplify that decision and to provide context for our opinion.
1
Uricoli v. Bd. of Trs., 91 N.J. 62 (1982)
A-1530-18T2
3
I.
Ortmann joined the Jersey City Police Department ("JCPD") as a
patrolman following his graduation from the Jersey City Police Academy in
1989. Ortmann served with the JCPD for over twenty-seven years in various
capacities. In 2007, Ortmann began working as the district clerk for the West
District of Jersey City, a position he retained until his retirement in 2016. In
addition to his district clerk duties, Ortmann also briefly served as off -duty
coordinator, scheduling and dispatching the district's police officers for
various off-duty jobs.
On December 20, 2016, Ortmann filed a retirement application with the
Division of Pensions and Benefits seeking an effective retirement date of
January 1, 2017. The application was subsequently approved by the Trustees
of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("Board") and Ortmann began
receiving his pension benefits on February 1, 2017.
As noted, on May 12, 2017, Ortmann pled guilty to a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371. In the federal information detailing the allegations against him,
the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey asserted that between
July 2015 and May 2016, Ortmann was involved in a conspiracy to receive
payments from Jersey City for off-duty work that he did not perform by
A-1530-18T2
4
making false representations about his off-duty assignments. Through this
conspiracy, Ortmann accepted over $12,000 in unearned payments. Ortmann
was sentenced consistent with his plea bargain to a three-year probationary
term, fined $2000, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $17,620.
Ortmann also entered a consent judgment and order of forfeiture of the
$12,617 in improper payments he received.
The State then filed a verified complaint and order to show cause
seeking, among other relief, Ortmann's permanent disqualification from any
public position. The complaint also alleged that Ortmann's federal conviction
constituted a crime substantially similar to the crimes enumerated under
N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(b) which required the complete forfeiture of all benefits
earned as a member of the public pension fund in which he participated at the
time of the commission of the offense. 2
Judge Jacobson granted the State's application to proceed summarily and
after hearing oral arguments, issued an oral decision and order granting the
State's summary judgment application. In her oral opinion, the judge rejected
2
The State also filed a verified complaint against Ortmann's co-conspirator,
also seeking forfeiture of public office, permanent disqualification from any
other public position, and forfeiture of pension benefits. The court granted the
State's application in that related matter and entered a conforming order on
June 27, 2019.
A-1530-18T2
5
all of Ortmann's jurisdictional and constitutional arguments and specifically
concluded that the Legislature's enactment of N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 did not violate
the separation of powers doctrine and the complete forfeiture of Ortmann's
pension did not violate his substantive or procedural due process rights. 3
Specifically, the court reasoned that there was no "separation of powers
problem with the [L]egislature directing the court to . . . grant an order of total
forfeiture if the statutory requirements are met." The court noted that, in
amending the statute in 2007 to include mandatory forfeiture, the Legislature
"recognized that the pension board had administrative responsibilities for
administering the pension, but . . . directed that the . . . application for the total
forfeiture be done by . . . a state court judge." The court determined that
because "the [L]egislature had the authority to delegate in the first instance," it
was "not up to the court to quarrel with the legislative decision to make the
delegation."
Further, the court concluded that because "the [L]egislature intended a
total forfeiture when an individual commits [a] crime that is listed in [N.J.S.A.
3
Ortmann also alleged that the pension forfeiture violated his equal protection
rights. He has not, however, raised that claim on appeal, and it is therefore
waived. See Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App. Div.
2011).
A-1530-18T2
6
43:1-3.1]" and Ortmann's crime "touched upon his employment as a Jersey
City police officer," Ortmann's due process rights were satisfied without an
evidentiary hearing. In this regard, the court noted that "there [was] no basis
for any trial[-]type hearing because there [were] no facts in dispute" regarding
whether Ortmann's crime violated N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1.
With respect to Ortmann's equal protection claim, the court determined
that although "some arguably similar cases . . . fall between the cracks," no
suspect class existed. The court noted that "[t]he statute itself vests the
[A]ttorney [G]eneral with the authority to seek total pension forfeiture . . .
when [that forfeiture] is based on a conviction of the laws of the United
States," like Ortmann's in this case. It further stated that "[t]he [L]egislature
had the right to determine the criteria on which pension forfeiture would be
based," and in enacting N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, it used its discretion to proscribe the
type of conduct in which Ortmann engaged and to require a total pension
forfeiture.
After the court denied Ortmann's stay application, this appeal followed.
II.
We reject Ortmann's claim that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
decide the forfeiture issues raised by the State's verified complaint as contrary
A-1530-18T2
7
to the express provisions of N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. That statute provides that any
person who holds or formerly held "any public office, position, or
employment" in the State government, or an agency or division thereof, and is
convicted of one of the enumerated crimes "shall forfeit all of the pension or
retirement benefit" in which he participated at the time the offense was
committed and which covered the position involved in that offense. N.J.S.A.
43:1-3.1(a); see also State v. Steele, 410 N.J. Super. 129, 134-35 (App. Div.
2011). Among the enumerated offenses are various crimes involving official
misconduct. N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(b). Further, a court must order a total pension
forfeiture if an individual, like Ortmann, is convicted of a "substantially
similar offense[s] under the laws of another state or the United States."
N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(a). In this regard, N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(c) provides that "[a]
court of this State shall enter an order of pension forfeiture pursuant to this
section" upon a finding of guilt by the trier of fact, entrance of a guilty plea, or
application by the State when forfeiture is based on a conviction under the
laws of another jurisdiction.
Ortmann argues that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-13(a)(1), the Board
has exclusive authority over the operation of the pension fund, including
A-1530-18T2
8
primary and exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to entitlement to
benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-13(a)(1) provides:
[T]he general responsibility for the proper operation
of the retirement system is hereby vested in a board of
trustees . . . . The board shall act exclusively on
behalf of the contributing employers, active members
of the retirement system, and retired members as
fiduciary of the system. The primary obligation of the
board shall be to direct policies and investments to
achieve and maintain the full funding and continuation
of the retirement system for the exclusive benefit of its
members.
The meaning of any statute is a question of law which we review de
novo. Steele, 420 N.J. Super. at 133. Legislative intent is the primary concern
in interpreting a statute, and "the best indicator of that intent is the statutory
language." Ibid. (quoting DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)).
Courts do not "engage in conjecture or surmise which will circumvent the
plain meaning" of a statute. Ibid.Here, although the Legislature delegated general administrative authority
over the pension fund to the Board under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-13(a)(1), the
Legislature later explicitly delegated pension forfeiture determinations
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 to the judiciary. While Ortmann places much
emphasis on the use of the word "exclusively" in N.J.S.A. 43:16A-13(a)(1),
this term is plainly used to establish that the Board, as fiduciary, is to act
A-1530-18T2
9
solely in service of its contributing employers and members, to the exclusion
of any other competing interests. Nothing in the plain language of the statute
could be interpreted to preclude the Legislature from imposing new limitations
or delegating other powers going forward, such as the delegation made to the
judiciary in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. Judge Jacobson therefore clearly had
jurisdiction to resolve the pension forfeiture application.
Nor does the Legislative delegation in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 violate the
Separation of Powers clause of the New Jersey Constitution. See N.J. Const.
art. III ("The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct
branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons
belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers
properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this
Constitution."). Like all statutes, N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 is presumed constitutional.
Whirlpool Props. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 208 N.J. 141, 175 (2011). A
legislative act will only be declared void if "its repugnancy to the Constitution
is clear beyond a reasonable doubt." Harvey v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 30
N.J. 381, 388 (1959). The "heavy burden" of establishing invalidity rest s with
the party challenging the statute. State v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, 160
N.J. 202, 526 (1999).
A-1530-18T2
10
In this case, Ortmann has failed to meet the heavy burden of
demonstrating that N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 is an unconstitutional violation of the
Separation of Powers clause. Indeed, while the clause prevents the
concentration of "inordinate power" in any single branch, it does not bar
"cooperative action" among the three branches, nor the delegation of limited
power from one branch to another. Brown v. Heymann, 62 N.J. 1, 11 (1972).
In fact, "the doctrine necessarily assumes the branches will coordinate to the
end that government will fulfill its mission." Ibid. It is well-established that
the Legislature may delegate authority to another branch, so long as sufficient
standards are provided to guide the exercise of discretion. Mt. Laurel v. Dep't
of Pub. Advoc., 83 N.J. 522, 532 (1980). When the Legislature has chosen to
delegate some of its authority to a co-equal branch, "it does not rest with [the
judiciary] to quarrel with the legislative decision to make the delegation."
Brown, 62 N.J. at 10.
Public-pension systems, like the Police and Firemen's Retirement
System at issue here, are expressly a creation of the Legislature. See N.J.S.A.
43:16A-2. And the Legislature delegated certain powers to the Board for the
purposes of administering that system. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-13(a). Among those
powers delegated is the discretionary authority to order the forfeiture of
A-1530-18T2
11
benefits when a member engages in misconduct during his or her public
service. N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(b). To guide the Board in the exercise of this
discretionary authority, the Legislature codified the Uricoli balancing test in
N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c), providing relevant factors for the Board to consider when
deciding to impose a partial or complete forfeiture.
By making this delegation, however, the Legislature did not cede all its
power to the Board, only those powers specified by statute. By enacting
N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, the Legislature delegated a different power – the authority
to enter mandatory pension forfeitures when the statutory criteria are met – and
it explicitly delegated that power to the judiciary. See N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(c). In
this regard, to distinguish between the Board's discretionary authority and the
authority granted to the courts, the Legislature explicitly provided that
"[n]othing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the authority of the
board of trustees . . . from ordering the forfeiture of all or part" of a member's
pension benefits pursuant to its discretionary authority. N.J.S.A. 43:1 -3.1(e).
We also agree with Judge Jacobson that the pension forfeiture ordered
did not violate Ortmann’s procedural or substantive due process rights. Under
Article I, § 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, "[a]ll persons are by nature free
and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which
A-1530-18T2
12
are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
Although the phrase "due process" does not appear in this section, our
Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to encompass both procedural
and substantive due process protections. Greenberg v. Kimmelman, 99 N.J.
552, 568 (1985).
In evaluating a procedural due process claim, New Jersey courts must
determine whether the State has infringed on a protected liberty or property
interest and "whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation are
constitutionally sufficient." Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 99 (1995). It is well-
established that public employees, like Ortmann, have a protected property
interest in their pension benefits. Gauer v. Essex Cty. Dep't of Welfare, 108
N.J. 140, 150 (1987) (citing Spina v. Consol. Police & Firemen's Pension Fund
Comm'n, 41 N.J. 391, 402 (1964)). Procedural due process, however, is "not a
fixed concept . . . but a flexible one that depends on the particular
circumstances." Id. at 106. At a minimum, due process requires notice and the
opportunity to be heard. Ibid.
Here, Ortmann received notice and had the opportunity to be heard
before the trial court. We disagree with Ortmann's claim that he was entitled
A-1530-18T2
13
to a proceeding in the Office of Administrative Law before an Administ rative
Law Judge. As noted, N.J.S.A 43:1-3.1(c) delegates to the judiciary, not the
executive branch, the authority to address the complete pension forfeiture at
issue. Equally as important, there were no factual questions requiring a
hearing. Indeed, all relevant factual questions necessary to address the relief
requested in the State's verified complaint were resolved by Ortmann's guilty
plea.
The only issue remaining was a legal one: whether the crime of which
Ortmann was convicted falls within the ambit of N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. Because
the statute requires total forfeiture upon conviction of such a crime, the trial
court was obligated to enter a forfeiture order upon its legal determination that
Ortmann was convicted of a substantially similar crime to those enumerated
under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(b). In fact, as Judge Jacobson noted, the kind of
evidentiary hearing requested by Ortmann would only function as an implied
repeal of the mandatory forfeiture statute. If the trial judge hearing a pension
forfeiture matter could reevaluate the undisputed facts of the underlying
criminal conviction before deciding to enter a forfeiture order, there would no
longer be anything "mandatory" about such a forfeiture.
A-1530-18T2
14
As previously noted, it is well-established that public employees have a
property interest in an existing pension benefits fund. Gauer, 108 N.J. at 150.
Based on this principle, Ortmann argues that the mandatory forfeiture order
deprived him of his property interest in his pension benefits and violated his
right to substantive due process. We disagree.
"Insofar as most rights are concerned, a state statute does not violate
substantive due process if the statute reasonably relates to a legitimate
legislative purpose and is not arbitrary or discriminatory." Greenberg, 99 N.J.
at 563. Unless a "fundamental right" is implicated, a statute will survive a due
process challenge so long as it is supported by a rational basis. Ibid. Although
public employees have a property interest in their pension benefits , there is no
fundamental right to a public pension, and Ortmann does not argue such a
fundamental right. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21
(1997) (stating that fundamental rights are those "objectively, deeply rooted in
this Nation's history and traditions" and "implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and is rationally
related to the legitimate legislative purpose of discouraging corruption in the
state's public workforce. The statute is by no means unprecedented in its
A-1530-18T2
15
imposition of pension forfeiture as a penalty for misconduct. "All public
pension statutes in this State carry an implicit condition precedent of honorable
service . . . . In that respect, pension forfeiture operates as a penalty or
punishment for wrongful conduct." Corvelli v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys., 130 N.J. 539, 550 (1992). Pension forfeiture serves two government
objectives: "punishment of the individual and deterrence, both as to the
offending individual and other employees." Eyers v. State, Bd. of Trs. Pub.
Emps. Ret. Sys., 91 N.J. 51, 56 (1982). In serving these dual purposes of
punishment and deterrence, the pension forfeiture statute operates to protect
the public from the serious problem of government corruption.
As Justice O'Hern noted in his dissent in Uricoli, while "the personal
suffering that results from pension forfeiture" may seem like a harsh penalty,
the Legislature deemed this to be an appropriate consequence for official
misconduct. Uricoli, 91 N.J. at 84. It was well within the Legislature's power
to set this penalty as it saw fit. See Brown, 62 N.J. at 10-11 (noting that policy
decisions rest with the Legislature and that a statute's constitutionality "does
not turn upon whether a plan is wise or unwise in a judge's view"). We agree
with Judge Jacobson that because N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 reasonably relates to the
A-1530-18T2
16
legitimate state interest in combating public corruption, the statute does not
violate substantive due process and is therefore constitutional.
Finally, Ortmann argues that the trial court erred in declining to apply
the Uricoli factors to his case. Again, we disagree.
Prior to the enactment of N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, the New Jersey Supreme
Court established a balancing test and relevant factors for courts to apply when
presented with a pension forfeiture claim. Uricoli, 91 N.J. at 77-78. The
Uricoli factors, which were later codified in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c), apply "only to
those claims for benefits where the specific pension statute is silent respecting
the effect of a conviction for a crime relating to the applicant's public office."
Borrello v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 313 N.J. Super. 75, 77 (App.
Div. 1998) (emphasis added). Because Ortmann pled guilty to a crime covered
under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, application of the Uricoli factors was not required.
Affirmed.
A-1530-18T2
17