AB 1844 defines and organizes the survivor-settlement choices available under Judges’ Retirement System II for judges who retire on or after January 1, 2018. It enumerates the unmodified option and five optional settlements — a return-of-contributions option, 100% and 50% beneficiary options (each with an enhanced variant), and a flexible option that lets a retiree name a dollar amount or percentage for survivors — and it sets rules for payments to second beneficiaries and estates.
The bill also prescribes how allowances change when a designated spouse predeceases the retiree and when marital dissolution or annulment reallocates the retiree’s system interest. For administrators, actuaries, and counsel, the text tightens the chain of priority for lump-sum returns of unused accumulated contributions and places operational triggers for allowance adjustments on concrete events (death, filing of a judgment).
At a Glance
What It Does
Codifies six retirement-settlement options in a single statute for judges retiring on or after Jan. 1, 2018 — from the unmodified, no-survivor payment option to flexible dollar-or-percentage survivor payments — and specifies when and how remaining accumulated contributions are paid to survivors, second beneficiaries, or estates.
Who It Affects
Retired judges covered by Judges’ Retirement System II, their surviving spouses or designated beneficiaries, second-designated beneficiaries and estates, the Board that administers JRS II, and the system’s actuaries and employers who ultimately fund pensions.
Why It Matters
The statute converts discretionary or scattered rules into a clear menu of options with defined triggers for adjustments and lump-sum pay-outs, which changes how judges choose retirement settlements and how administrators calculate and process survivor payments and refunds.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute starts by identifying who it covers: judges who retire on or after January 1, 2018. It then lays out the default and optional settlements a retiree may select at retirement.
The unmodified option provides the maximum life allowance to the judge and no continuing monthly payment to any survivor (except for other benefits already established elsewhere) and denies a post-death return of unused accumulated contributions. The return-of-contributions option preserves a lump-sum refund right: if the retiree dies before receiving annuity payments equal to the accumulated contributions at retirement, the balance goes to the surviving spouse, or if none, to a designated beneficiary or the estate.
Two full-survivor and two half-survivor options follow. The 100 Percent and 50 Percent options continue the judge’s allowance to a surviving spouse or designated beneficiary at either 100% or 50% of the judge’s monthly amount.
Each of those options has an enhanced variant that contemplates a benefit-allowance increase while also providing adjustment mechanics: if the spouse predeceases the judge or a divorce/annulment awards the retiree the whole system interest, the judge’s allowance is recalculated and increased effective the first day of the month after the triggering event to reflect what would have been paid if the optional settlement had not been elected.The statute also handles coordination with Section 75590: for judges whose benefits are subject to subdivisions (c) or (d) of that section, any survivor payment is limited to the portion of the allowance that exceeds the amount deemed payable under 75590(c) or (d). In addition, when both the judge and the primary surviving beneficiary have died, any remaining portion of the retiree’s accumulated contributions that was not consumed by the monthly allowances is paid as a lump sum to the retiree’s second designated beneficiary or, if none, to the estate.Finally, the Flexible Beneficiary option lets a retiring judge specify either a fixed dollar monthly amount or a percentage of the judge’s monthly allowance to be paid to one or more surviving beneficiaries, subject to any constraints in Section 75570.5.
Taken together, the provisions create a structured, prioritized sequence for survivor payments, lump-sum refunds, and allowance adjustments triggered by death or family-law judgments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies only to judges who retire on or after January 1, 2018; earlier retirees are outside its scope.
Unmodified allowance: the retiree receives the maximum life benefit and no continuing monthly survivor payment or return of unused accumulated contributions.
Return of Remaining Contributions (Option 1): if the retiree dies before collecting annuity payments equal to accumulated contributions at retirement, the unpaid balance goes to the surviving spouse, or failing that to a designated beneficiary or the estate.
100% and 50% Beneficiary Options (Options 2 and 3): provide lifetime survivor payments at 100% or 50% of the judge’s monthly allowance; for judges governed by 75590(c)/(d), survivors receive only the portion exceeding the amount deemed payable under 75590.
Flexible Option (Option 4): permits the retiring judge to specify either a specific monthly dollar amount or a specified percentage of the judge’s allowance to pay to one or more surviving beneficiaries, subject to Section 75570.5.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Unmodified allowance — judge-only lifetime benefit
Paragraph (a) defines the unmodified settlement: the retiree receives the highest monthly allowance for life and, in exchange, no continuing monthly payment is provided to a surviving spouse or beneficiary (except other benefits referenced elsewhere), and there is no return of unused accumulated contributions after the judge’s death. Practically, this is the actuarially largest monthly check to the retiree but leaves surviving dependents with no ongoing JRS II benefit from that allowance stream.
Return of Remaining Contributions (Option 1)
Paragraph (b) creates a simple refund-protection option: the judge receives a lifetime annuity, and if the judge dies before receiving annuity payments equal to the accumulated contributions recorded at retirement, the unrecouped balance is paid as a lump sum to a surviving spouse, or if none, to a designated beneficiary or the estate. This shifts longevity risk back to the system in a narrowly defined way (refund of unrecouped contributions) while leaving the monthly allowance intact.
100% Beneficiary Option and 100% with Benefit Allowance Increase
Subdivisions (c) and (d) describe a full-survivor option (Option 2) and its variant that contemplates an allowance increase. Both pay the identical monthly allowance to a surviving spouse or designated beneficiary for life. They also provide a mechanism to pay any remaining accumulated contributions to a second designated beneficiary or the estate after both primary parties have died. The 'with Benefit Allowance Increase' variant adds two operational adjustments: if the spouse predeceases the judge, or if a court judgment in a divorce/annulment awards the retiree the entire interest in the system, the judge’s allowance is adjusted effective the first day of the month after the triggering event to reflect what would have been paid without the optional settlement.
50% Beneficiary Option and 50% with Benefit Allowance Increase
Subdivisions (e) and (f) mirror the full-survivor provisions but set survivor payments at one-half of the judge’s monthly allowance. They likewise protect second-designated beneficiaries or the estate with a lump-sum payment of any unused accumulated contributions after both primary recipients have died, and they include the same adjustment triggers and effective-date language where the spouse predeceases the judge or a court reallocates system interest post-divorce or annulment.
Flexible Beneficiary Option (Option 4)
Subdivision (g) lets the retiree craft a customized survivor payment: the judge may pick a specific dollar amount or a percentage of the judge’s monthly allowance to be paid to one or more surviving beneficiaries for life. The option is subject to Section 75570.5, which may impose actuarial or administrative constraints. This provision introduces flexibility for judges with non-standard family arrangements or precise survivor-income goals but requires the board to implement variable payout structures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Retired judges who need flexible survivor planning — the flexible option and the two-tier beneficiary options let judges tailor survivor income and preserve estate protections.
- Surviving spouses and designated beneficiaries — Options 2, 3, and 4 create predictable lifetime income streams for survivors instead of leaving them to seek lump-sum returns or rely on other benefits.
- Second-designated beneficiaries and estates — the statute preserves a priority path for any unused accumulated contributions to flow to a second beneficiary or the estate after both primary recipients die, giving estate planners clearer outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Judges’ Retirement System II (and ultimately its employers and members) — survivor options and refund guarantees change the system’s liability profile and require actuarial pricing and potential contribution or reserve adjustments.
- Retired judges who elect survivor options — choosing a continuing survivor benefit typically reduces the initial monthly allowance, so judges bear the trade-off between higher personal income and survivor protection.
- CalPERS/Board administrative staff and actuarial vendors — the board must calculate varied benefit streams, implement adjustment triggers, process lump-sum refunds to second beneficiaries, and reconcile interactions with Section 75590 and family-law judgments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals that pull in opposite directions: securing predictable, lifetime income for surviving spouses and beneficiaries versus preserving actuarial fairness and the retirement system’s fiscal integrity. Strengthening survivor protections reduces a retiree’s current benefit or increases system liabilities; tightening refund rules protects fund solvency but leaves survivors or estates with less protection. There is no formula in the statute that simultaneously maximizes both objectives, so implementation choices — actuarial factors, administrative procedures, and interactions with family-law judgments — will determine which priority wins in practice.
Several implementation and interpretive issues deserve attention. First, the statute repeatedly references amounts "deemed payable pursuant to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 75590" without defining how the deemed amount is calculated or how it interacts with the new options; administrators will need clear actuarial rules to determine the "excess" payable to survivors and to avoid inconsistent applications across cases.
Second, the adjustment mechanics that trigger a recalculation of the judge’s allowance (spouse predeceasing the judge; filing of a divorce/annulment judgment) rely on discrete events and effective dates but do not spell out the timing or documentation process for the board to follow — for example, how quickly the board must re-run actuarial factors and whether retroactive payments or recoveries are permitted.
There is also an ambiguity in how the statute uses the phrase "surviving spouse, designated beneficiary" in places where California family law may distinguish spouse-rights from designated-beneficiary rights; that could complicate community-property division and enforcement of court judgments. From a fiscal perspective, the flexible option and the refund option expose the system to non-linear liability patterns (large lump-sum refunds, long-duration survivor streams), which will require updated pricing and may shift costs between cohorts if contribution assumptions are not recalibrated.
Finally, the statute assumes clean beneficiary hierarchies (primary, second) that may not reflect modern estate arrangements (trusts, multiple contingent beneficiaries), and the board will need clear administrative rules to adjudicate competing claims.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.