Opinion ID: 2506601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Our holding is consistent with the position of the Federal Food and Nutrition Service.

Text: In the 1998 preamble to proposed changes to the federal food stamp regulations that were intended to incorporate statutory changes made by PRWORA, [45] the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) responded to comments, stating that households are responsible for all overpayments with no exception for equitable estoppel. [46] In the 2000 preamble to the final rule implementing PRWORA's statutory changes, FNS again responded to comments, reiterating its position that equitable estoppel cannot bar recoupment. [47] The Allen superior court erroneously referred to two of these FNS statements as [a] 1996 amendment to the [Food Stamp] [A]ct and [a] 2000 amendment to the regulations governing the Food Stamp Act, and thereby found that the Agency had properly relied on the language of the Food Stamp Act and the federal regulations in making its decision to reject the equitable estoppel defense. The Allen superior court thus mistakenly accorded more weight to the FNS statements than they are due. Because the FNS has not chosen to encode its position regarding equitable estoppel in a binding regulation, [48] this court need only defer to that position to the extent that it is persuasive (so-called  Skidmore deference). [49] In reaching our decision we rely primarily on our own assessment of the law as discussed above, but we note that our holding is consistent with the position of the FNS, which we believe to be correct.