Versaci v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Versaci v. Department of Children & Families

743 So. 2d 1194, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14585, 1999 WL 993149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 3, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0022

StatusPublished

This text of 743 So. 2d 1194 (Versaci v. Department of Children & Families) 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

Versaci v. Department of Children & Families, 743 So. 2d 1194, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14585, 1999 WL 993149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Versaci appeals a final order requiring her to repay $1,080 in benefits she received from the Department of Children and Families (Department).

When her nephew resided with her full-time, Versaci received $180 per month in cash assistance. After the child started school, he lived with his stepfather during the week and with Versaci on weekends. Versaci continued to receive cash assistance, even though the child did not live with her full-time.

Once the Department’s benefit recovery unit discovered that the child did not live full-time with Versaci, it cut off benefits, determined that $1,080 had been overpaid, and commenced proceedings to collect the overpayment from Versaci.

Versaci represented herself at the hearing below. She conceded that she received the money at issue, but contended that every cent went to benefit the child; she said she turned the funds over to the guardian ad litem or the Department caseworker who would take the money to the stepfather. She asserted that this proce[1195]*1195dure was followed with the approval and participation of the Department.

In essence, Versaci raised the defense of equitable estoppel. It does not appear from the record that the hearing officer addressed the merits of such a defense. Therefore we remand for a new hearing where the sole issue 'will be whether the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel bars the Department from collecting the overpayment in this case. See Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994); Ammons v. Okeechobee County, 710 So.2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Story v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 666 So.2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lewis v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 659 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Warren v. Department of Admin., 554 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Kuge v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 449 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

POLEN, GROSS, JJ., and McCARTHY, TIMOTHY P., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Versaci appeals a final order requiring her to repay $1,080 in benefits she received from the Department of Children and Families (Department).

When her nephew resided with her full-time, Versaci received $180 per month in cash assistance. After the child started school, he lived with his stepfather during the week and with Versaci on weekends. Versaci continued to receive cash assistance, even though the child did not live with her full-time.

Once the Department’s benefit recovery unit discovered that the child did not live full-time with Versaci, it cut off benefits, determined that $1,080 had been overpaid, and commenced proceedings to collect the overpayment from Versaci.

Versaci represented herself at the hearing below. She conceded that she received the money at issue, but contended that every cent went to benefit the child; she said she turned the funds over to the guardian ad litem or the Department caseworker who would take the money to the stepfather. She asserted that this proce[1195]*1195dure was followed with the approval and participation of the Department.

In essence, Versaci raised the defense of equitable estoppel. It does not appear from the record that the hearing officer addressed the merits of such a defense. Therefore we remand for a new hearing where the sole issue 'will be whether the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel bars the Department from collecting the overpayment in this case. See Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994); Ammons v. Okeechobee County, 710 So.2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Story v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 666 So.2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lewis v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 659 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Warren v. Department of Admin., 554 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Kuge v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 449 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

POLEN, GROSS, JJ., and McCARTHY, TIMOTHY P., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 So. 2d 1194, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14585, 1999 WL 993149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/versaci-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack