LOUIS MORENO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant must repay the overpaid unemployment benefits because the statutory exception for denial of repayment does not apply.
Appellant was overpaid unemployment benefits due to an agency error listing the wrong employer, which he repeatedly brought to their attention. The ag…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recoupment Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant asserts that he should not have to repay $3,500 in unemployment benefits which represent an overpayment. Although we are sympathetic to his plight, we must affirm.
After appellant first filed for unemployment benefits he noticed that the Division of Unemployment Compensation listed his last employer as an employer different from the employer for whom he had worked. He immediately notified the agency and assumed that they corrected it. When he reapplied for benefits a year later, his wage transcript again showed the wrong employer, and he again advised the agency of the error. Six months later, appellant again noticed the wrong employer was shown and again brought it to the attention of the Department, which then took action, eventually resulting in appellant being informed that he owed $3,500 as a result of overpayment.
Appellant admits he was overpaid, but argues that it is unfair under the circumstances to require him to make repayment. Although section 443.151(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1995) provides that “recoupment” from future unemployment benefits can be denied if it would be “against equity and good conscience,” there is no similar exception if “repayment” is ordered under section 443.151(6)(b). See Unemployment Appeals Comm’n v. Comer, 504 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1987). Although the distinction between repayment and recoupment (for purposes of allowing a defense) escapes us, the legislature has had ample time since Comer to eliminate the distinction and has not done so. We are left with no choice but to affirm.
KLEIN, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charner v. Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…AM. Affirmed. See §§ 443.101, .151(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); Unemployment Appeals Comm’n v. Comer, 504 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1987); Parzik v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Moreno v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 676 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).…
-
Altrames Kelly v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 723 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Moreno v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 676 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Keables v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Klotz Fam. Enters., Inc., 31 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…2008), requires Keables to repay the benefits, and it contains no provision excusing repayment based on equitable grounds. Morton v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 769 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Moreno v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 676 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Unemployment Appeals Comm'n v. Comer, 504 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1987)