Moreno v. STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moreno v. STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS

676 So. 2d 469, 1996 WL 295049

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1996

Docket95-3139

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 469 (Moreno v. STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moreno v. STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS, 676 So. 2d 469, 1996 WL 295049 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

676 So.2d 469 (1996)

Louis MORENO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 95-3139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 1996. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1996.

Louis Moreno, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

William T. Moore, Tallahassee, for appellee.

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 *470 (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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

676 So.2d 469 (1996)

Louis MORENO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 95-3139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 1996. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1996.

Louis Moreno, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

William T. Moore, Tallahassee, for appellee.

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 *470 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 469, 1996 WL 295049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-v-state-unemployment-appeals-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Louis MORENO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Louis MORENO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.