Walsh v. Andorn, 33 N.Y.2d 503 (1973)

A claim for pension benefits accrues upon the death of the employee, and the statute of limitations begins to run at that time; if the right to the pension is not established within the statutory period, all pension rights, including claims to past or future installments, are time-barred; a declaratory judgment should not be granted if it serves no useful purpose other than to support a time-barred claim.

Summary

Madge Walsh sued Lillian Andorn and the Police Pension Fund, seeking a declaration that she was the legal widow of James Walsh and entitled to his pension benefits, arguing a Mexican divorce obtained by James Walsh and his subsequent marriage to Andorn were invalid. The New York Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations barred Madge Walsh’s claim. The court reasoned that the cause of action accrued upon James Walsh’s death and because Madge Walsh did not bring the suit within the statutory period, her claim was time-barred. Furthermore, because her pension claim was unenforceable, a declaratory judgment regarding her marital status would serve no practical purpose and should not be granted.

Facts

James and Madge Walsh married in 1921 and separated in 1930, maintaining separate residences. They remarried in 1938 but continued to live apart. James retired from the police force in 1956. In 1959, James obtained a Mexican divorce from Madge without her notice and married Lillian Andorn in Connecticut. James and Lillian lived together until his death in 1964. Lillian applied for and received widow’s pension benefits from the Police Pension Fund starting in April 1964. Madge Walsh filed suit in October 1970, after allegedly learning of James’s death in May 1970, seeking to be declared the legal widow and entitled to the pension benefits, and to invalidate the Mexican divorce and James’s marriage to Lillian.

Procedural History

The Trial Term dismissed Madge Walsh’s complaint, holding the action was barred by the statute of limitations and laches. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring the Mexican divorce and James’s marriage to Lillian void, and awarded Madge Walsh pension benefits commencing six years prior to the suit’s initiation, deeming earlier benefits time-barred. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Trial Term’s judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the statute of limitations bars Madge Walsh’s claim for pension benefits, given that the action was commenced more than six years after James Walsh’s death.
2. Whether a declaratory judgment declaring Madge Walsh to be James Walsh’s legal widow should be granted when the sole purpose of such a declaration is to support a time-barred claim for pension benefits.

Holding

1. Yes, because the statute of limitations for a pension claim begins to run upon the employee’s death, and Madge Walsh failed to bring her action within the six-year statutory period.
2. No, because a declaratory judgment should not be rendered unless it serves a useful purpose, and in this case, it would only support an unenforceable claim.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the applicable statute of limitations for the pension claim was six years, which began to run upon James Walsh’s death in April 1964. Madge Walsh’s suit, filed in October 1970, was therefore time-barred. The court rejected the Appellate Division’s view that each pension installment created a separate, continuing cause of action. The court stated, “the enforceability of the right to the installments derives from and depends upon the enforceability of the primary right to the pension.” Therefore, since the primary right to the pension was time-barred, so too were the claims to individual installments.

Regarding the request for a declaratory judgment, the court emphasized that such a judgment should only be rendered if it serves a useful purpose. Quoting James v. Alderton Dock Yards, the court noted, “Where there is no necessity for resorting to the declaratory judgment it should not be employed.” Because Madge Walsh’s only asserted purpose for seeking a declaration of her marital status was to support her time-barred pension claim, the court concluded that a declaration would serve no practical end and should not be granted. The court explicitly confined its declination of declaratory relief to the matter at suit due to the statute of limitations.