ILCS » Chapter 40 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (2026)

Mistake in benefit

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(40 ILCS 5/3-144.2) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 3-144.2)
    Sec. 3-144.2. Mistake in benefit.
    (a) If the Fund commits a mistake by setting any benefit at an incorrect amount, it shall adjust the benefit to the correct level as soon as may be practicable after the mistake is discovered. The term "mistake" includes a clerical or administrative error executed by the Fund or participant as it relates to a benefit under this Article; however, in no case shall "mistake" include any benefit as it relates to the reasonable calculation of the benefit or aspects of the benefit based on salary, service credit, calculation or determination of a disability, date of retirement, or other factors significant to the calculation of the benefit that were reasonably understood or agreed to by the Fund at the time of retirement.
    (b) If the benefit was mistakenly set too low, the Fund shall make a lump sum payment to the recipient of an amount equal to the difference between the benefits that should have been paid and those actually paid, plus interest at the rate prescribed by the Public Pension Division of the Department of Insurance from the date the unpaid amounts accrued to the date of payment.
    (c) If the benefit was mistakenly set too high, the Fund may recover the amount overpaid from the recipient thereof, either directly or by deducting such amount from the remaining benefits payable to the recipient as is indicated by the recipient. If the overpayment is recovered by deductions from the remaining benefits payable to the recipient, the monthly deduction shall not exceed 10% of the corrected monthly benefit unless otherwise indicated by the recipient.
    However, if (i) the amount of the benefit was mistakenly set too high, and (ii) the error was undiscovered for 3 years or longer, and (iii) the error was not the result of fraud committed by the affected participant or beneficiary, then upon discovery of the mistake the benefit shall be adjusted to the correct level, but the recipient of the benefit need not repay to the Fund the excess amounts received in error.
(Source: P.A. 98-1117, eff. 8-26-14.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Kaczka v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 923 N.E.2d 1282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaczka v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 923 N.E.2d 1282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “2d 689 ; 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2006). The court agreed with the board in principle, but under the facts presented found that the board's change in interpretation of the Pension Code did not qualify as an "error" within the meaning of section 3-144.”
Ray v. Beussink & Hickam, P.C., 2018 IL App (5th) 170274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 7× “For the reasons stated in this opinion, we answer only the first of the two certified questions. Although the Pension Fund correctly detected that Ray’s pension benefits were erroneously set, the benefits miscalculation is not a simple arithmetical error that can be corrected…”
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “" 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2010). ¶ 25 While SERS acknowledges the legislature did not grant it the express authority to fix errors in its pension calculations, it urges this court to infer its authority based on the objectives for which SERS was created, its fiduciary duty, and…”
Ray v. Beussink & Hickam, P.C., 2018 IL App (5th) 170274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 7× “For the reasons stated in this opinion, we answer only the first of the two certified questions. Although the Pension Fund correctly detected that Ray’s pension benefits were erroneously set, the benefits miscalculation is not a simple arithmetical error that can be corrected…”
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2010). ¶ 25 While SERS acknowledges the legislature did not grant it the express authority to fix errors in its pension calculations, it urges this court to infer its authority based on the objectives for which SERS was created, its fiduciary duty, and…”
Chappell v. Bd. of Trs. of Illinois Mun. Ret. Fund, 2020 IL App (1st) 192255 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “2 (West 2002) (“[t]he amount of any overpayment, due to fraud, misrepresentation or error, of any pension or benefit granted under this Article may be deducted from future payments to the recipient of such pension or benefit”).”
Cronholm v. Bd. of Trs. of the Lockport Twp. FPD Firefighters' Pension Fund, 2021 IL App (3d) 190636-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “¶ 21 On August 26, 2014, Public Act 98-1117 § 5 took effect and amended 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 by altering one “Mistake in Benefit” section and adding four new “Mistake in Benefit” sections, including the section at issue.”
Morris v. Harper, 912 N.E.2d 1288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “" 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2006). The doctrine of in pari materia requires that different sections of the same statute be read harmoniously and viewed as a whole.”
Baldermann v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Police Pension Fund of the Vill. of Chicago Ridge, 2014 IL App (1st) 140482 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2010)), which permits recovery of overpayments to beneficiaries due to "fraud, misrepresentation or error.”
Baldermann v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Police Pension Fund of the Vill. of Chicago Ridge, 2014 IL App (1st) 140482 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2010)), which permits recovery of overpayments to beneficiaries due to “fraud, misrepresentation or error.”
Rutka v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cicero Police Pension Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “) 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2006). In Kosakowski, the court interpreted section 3-144.”
Kaczka v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “3d at 383 ; 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 (West 2006). The court agreed with the board in principle, but under the facts presented found that the board’s change in interpretation of the Pension Code did not qualify as an “error” within the meaning of section 3-144.”
— 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2(a) — 3 cases
Ray v. Beussink & Hickam, P.C., 2018 IL App (5th) 170274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “For the reasons stated in this opinion, we answer only the first of the two certified questions. Although the Pension Fund correctly detected that Ray’s pension benefits were erroneously set, the benefits miscalculation is not a simple arithmetical error that can be corrected…”
Ray v. Beussink & Hickam, P.C., 2018 IL App (5th) 170274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “For the reasons stated in this opinion, we answer only the first of the two certified questions. Although the Pension Fund correctly detected that Ray’s pension benefits were erroneously set, the benefits miscalculation is not a simple arithmetical error that can be corrected…”
Cronholm v. Bd. of Trs. of the Lockport Twp. FPD Firefighters' Pension Fund, 2021 IL App (3d) 190636-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 21 On August 26, 2014, Public Act 98-1117 § 5 took effect and amended 40 ILCS 5/3-144.2 by altering one “Mistake in Benefit” section and adding four new “Mistake in Benefit” sections, including the section at issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.