Opinion ID: 2506601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ian Wallis's appeal

Text: After receiving the Agency's notice regarding recoupment of $448 in excess food stamps, Wallis requested an administrative hearing. At the hearing, Wallis, like Allen, unsuccessfully argued that equitable estoppel should prevent the Agency from recouping the overpaid food stamps and that the Agency's notice violated the federal regulations. Wallis appealed the hearing authority's decision to the Director of Public Assistance, who upheld it. Wallis then appealed to the superior court. Superior Court Judge Craig F. Stowers upheld the Agency decision regarding the unavailability of the equitable estoppel defense but agreed with Wallis that the Agency's notice did not meet the federal regulation requirements. Language from the Federal Register, [4] along with Judge Huguelet's decision in Allen's case, persuaded the superior court that Congress intended to preempt state equitable estoppel defenses in the context of food stamp overpayments. The superior court also decided that the Agency's notice to Wallis did not meet the 7 C.F.R. § 273.18(e)(3)(iv)(E) requirement that it show [h]ow the claim was calculated, because it did not explain how the Agency arrived at the basic amount of Wallis's correct food stamp allotment, from which its calculation of the amount of overpayment flowed. Additionally, the superior court held that the notice was not sufficiently clear regarding [t]he opportunity to inspect and copy records related to the claim as required by 7 C.F.R. § 273.18(e)(3)(iv)(H). The superior court also suggested that in order to avoid notice challenges the Agency should use notices that simply copy the language in 7 C.F.R. § 273.18(e)(3)(iv)(M), stating [t]hat the State agency may reduce any part of the claim if the agency believes that the household is not able to repay the claim. Wallis then filed this appeal on the sole issue of whether federal law precludes the defense of equitable estoppel in food stamp overpayment cases. The Agency questions whether the superior court's decision affirming the Agency determination in part and reversing it in part constitutes an appealable final order but supports the Court's accepting of the improper appeal as a petition for review.