Case Title: Unemployment Appeals Com'n v. Comer

Citation: 504 So. 2d 760

Docket Number: 68145, 68442

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1987-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
504 So. 2d 760 (1987)
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Petitioner,
v.
Zachary S. COMER, Respondent.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Petitioner,
v.
Pierre S. RENELUS, Respondent.
Nos. 68145, 68442.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 2, 1987.
John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
John R. Greenwood and Abbe Cohn of Haitian American Community Ass'n of Dade County, (HACAD), Inc., Miami, for respondents.
OVERTON, Justice.
The Unemployment Appeals Commission petitions for review of Comer v. State, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 481 So. 2d 67 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), and Renelus v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 484 So. 2d 629 (Fla.3d DCA 1986). In each case, the Commission sought repayment *761 of unemployment compensation benefits to which the claimants, Comer and Renelus, were not entitled. Both claimants asserted that recovery of overpayments should be waived under section 443.151(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1983). The Unemployment Compensation Referee determined in both cases that the compensation law does not allow waiver of overpayment recovery. The district court held, however, that the claimants may assert the defense that repayment of benefits would defeat the purpose of unemployment compensation law or would be against equity and good conscience. The district court certified its decisions to be in express and direct conflict with Sheppard v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 442 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We agree that there is direct and express conflict and we have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we quash the decisions of the Third District Court of Appeal in Comer and Renelus and approve the Fourth District Court's decision in Sheppard.
The sole issue in this case is the interpretation of section 443.151(6)(c), specifically whether it provides claimants a defense in the Commission's repayment efforts. Section 443.151(6), Florida Statutes (1983), addressing recovery and recoupment of overpayments, reads in part:
(Emphasis added.) Under the statute, the Division of Unemployment Compensation, at its discretion, may recover overpayments by (1) demanding direct repayment or (2) recouping monies from future benefits. Section 443.151(6)(c) sets forth a defense to recoupment from future benefits when the claimant can establish the overpayments were received without claimant's fault and recoupment would defeat the purpose of the act or be against equity and good conscience.
The Commission argues that the legislature intended these defenses to apply only to recoupment proceedings  not repayment proceedings. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and reaffirmed its holding in Sagaert v. State, Department of Labor, 418 So. 2d 1228 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), which held that section 443.151(6)(c) "must be read to apply to recovery by repayment as well as by recoupment from future benefits." Id. at 1230. See Garcia v. State, Department of Labor, 426 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (applying Sagaert). In Sheppard, the Fourth District Court of *762 Appeal disagreed, expressly rejecting Sagaert, and stating that to allow the provision's application to repayment proceedings would be
442 So. 2d  at 1116.
In our view, the statutory scheme clearly distinguishes repayment and recoupment. Recoupment contemplates future payments. It logically follows that deducting improperly paid funds from future payments due a faultless claimant may defeat the purpose of the act and be against equity and good conscience. We find the intent was to provide the defense only when recoupment is sought because, if the Commission was always allowed to recover from payments due, the purpose of the benefits to the unemployed claimant could be defeated in many instances.
For the reasons expressed, we approve Sheppard, disapprove Sagaert and Garcia, and quash Comer and Renelus.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J. (Ret.), dissents.