PABLO MORA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1996-07-31
No. 95-3501
Before LEVY, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
677 So. 2d 108 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1996)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission did not err in requiring repayment of erroneously awarded unemployment benefits.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was previously determined not entitled to unemployment benefits due to misconduct. He was later notified that he must repay the benefits he …

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Pablo Mora, appeals the determination by appellee, the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (“Commission”), that he must repay benefits he was erroneously awarded. We affirm.

In Mora v. City of North Bay Village, 654 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), appeal dismissed, 666 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1995), this Court affirmed the Commission’s determination that the appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct in connection with work. Section 443.151(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), requires an individual erroneously awarded unemployment benefits to either repay the funds or have that amount deducted from any future benefits received, and states specifically:

If any person, other than by reason of his fraud, has received any sum as benefits under this chapter to which, under a rede-termination or decision pursuant to this section, he has been found not entitled, he shall be hable to repay such sum ... or, in the discretion of the division, shall have such sum deducted from any future benefits .... No such recovery or recoupment of such sum may be effected after 2 years from the date of such redetermination or decision.

Here, the appellant was notified in March of 1995 that he was responsible for repayment, thereby clearly falling under the timing requirement of the statute. Accordingly, the Commission did not err in requiring repayment and the order below is affirmed. Delgado v. Concentrated Chemical Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw