LINDA PAYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLA. DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, ETC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2004-06-16
No. 3D03-1740
Before COPE, GERSTEN, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
875 So. 2d 763 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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 appellant must reimburse the Department for overpaid benefits, despite the Department's error.


Facts & Procedural History

The Department of Children & Families erroneously paid $1,080 in AFDC benefits to Linda Payne, who was ineligible because she was not blood-related to…

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.

Linda Payne appeals from a final administrative order requiring her to reimburse the Department of Children & Families (Department) for the overpayment of aid for dependent children (AFDC) benefits. We affirm.

In the instant case, Payne received cash assistance benefits from the Florida Department of Children & Families in the sum of $1,080 as a result of Department error. Payne had cared for the child in question since birth, but was not blood related to the child. This made her ineligible for benefits. Pursuant to the Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, the Agency is required to recoup these over-payments. See Willis v. Dept. of Children & Family Serv., 735 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also Lewis v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 659 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As in Willis, we find that Ms. Payne must reimburse the Department for the erroneous payment of benefits.

Although we must affirm the Department’s final order, we acknowledge that the Department has caused the error, and that Ms. Payne will now have to repay the Department at a time when she is struggling to provide for the minor child for whom she is serving as a legal guardian. As we did in Willis, we pause to sympathize with Ms. Payne and believe that her frustration with the situation created by the Department is well founded.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
    …ls from these written orders. Based on the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse and remand to the trial court to correct its written adjudicate- [*888] ry and probation orders to conform with its oral pronouncements. See S.S.M. v. State, 875 So. 2d 763, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(holding that “a written probation order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing”); Creme v. State, 752 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(reversing and remanding to trial court to correct sente…
  • N.G. v. State, 50 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
    …confirms that the trial court ordered that the adjudication be withheld at the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand to the lower court for correction of the written adjudicatory order to conform to the oral pronouncement. See S.S.M. v. State, 875 So. 2d 763, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that a “written probation order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing”); see also S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887, 887-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding to trial court to…
  • Samira Nekhaila v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 971 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …nder Florida law the Department must recover overpay-ments, regardless of whether overpayment is the result of an error on the part of the Department or the recipient. See § 414.41, Fla. Stat. (2005); Payne v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 875 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Willis v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 735 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). While we sympathize with the appellant’s situation, [*928] the statute requires repayment even though a significant portion of the error was attribut…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw