Opinion ID: 1709616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Type of proceeding.

Text: Hurd contends that the phrase in contested cases mentioned in IAC rule 441-95.12(3) establishes his right to a contested case hearing before the agency. Hurd also asserts that the CSRU violated his constitutional right to due process of law guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by failing to give him a full evidentiary-type hearing as allowed in a contested case before making the decision to release his name to credit reporting agencies. Under [Iowa Code] chapter 17A, an agency's action may be characterized as rule-making, contested case or other agency action. Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman v. Rolfes, 454 N.W.2d 815, 817 (Iowa 1990). Here, neither party contends that the CSRU's action with respect to disclosing information to consumer reporting agencies qualifies as rule-making. Thus, the agency action at issue here is either a contested case or other agency action. The importance of the distinction between the various types of agency action lies in the procedural due process which attaches to contested cases. See Iowa Code §§ 17A.10-.17, .19; Polk County v. Iowa State Appeal Bd., 330 N.W.2d 267, 276 (Iowa 1983). Under chapter 17A, a contested case is defined as a proceeding including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by Constitution or statute to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. Iowa Code § 17A.2(5). Agency action or adjudication falls into the contested case category if the constitution or a state statute requires an evidentiary hearing. Polk County, 330 N.W.2d at 276. If the hearing required is not an evidentiary hearing, then the adjudication is merely an informal adjudication and falls into the other agency action category. Id. We first point out that nothing in our state constitution, our state law, or in 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(7) imposes a duty on the CSRU to provide a child support obligor with an evidentiary or contested case-type hearing before the agency can release the obligor's name to credit reporting agencies. The federal law and corresponding regulations only require that the state enforcement agency comply with all state procedural due process requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(7); 45 C.F.R. § 303.105. Thus, the action taken by the CSRU with respect to holding a conference as called for in IAC rule 441-95.12(3), is not considered a contested case proceeding. See Polk County, 330 N.W.2d at 277. Furthermore, the CSRU does not determine the legal rights, duties or privileges of a child support obligor simply by confirming that an obligor owes more than $1000 in child support or by releasing this information to a consumer reporting agency. Cf. Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman, 454 N.W.2d at 817 (investigation by Office of Citizens' Aide of county sheriff concerning allegations of misuse of government property and gift law violations did not determine sheriff's legal rights and duties and thus was not a contested case action; purely investigative or fact-finding activity is not an adjudication of legal rights). Additionally, we believe that the phrase contested cases when considered in context in IAC rule 441-95.12 simply refers to a situation where there is a dispute regarding the amount of child support owed and does not mean that a child support obligor has a right to a contested case hearing as defined in Iowa Code section 17A.2(5) before the CSRU can release information concerning an obligor's child support arrearage. We further conclude that the conference provided for in IAC rule 441-95.12 affords a child support obligor sufficient due process in connection with actions taken by the CSRU to release information concerning the obligor's child support debt to consumer reporting agencies. Although the conference is not a formal contested case-type hearing, the obligor is given an opportunity, as Hurd was given in this situation, to present evidence or information showing that the amount owed according to agency records is incorrect under applicable statutes. Here, the administrative record shows that Hurd received notice that he owed more than $1000 in child support and that his name would be released to consumer reporting agencies thirty days after the date of the notice. The notice also informed Hurd that he had a right to a review of the CSRU's decision if he disagreed with the amount of child support due and that he would be required to submit proof to support his position. Thus, Hurd knew that the burden was on him to present evidence or information showing that he owed less than $1000 in child support under the applicable statutes. Being fully aware of this burden, Hurd chose to present only two exhibits at the conference, neither of which showed that he owed less than $1000 in child support. We also point that even when given the opportunity in district court in connection with his petition for judicial review, see Iowa Code section 17A.19(7), Hurd presented no relevant evidence to show that he owed less than $1000 in child support payments. [5] Hurd makes several other contentions that his constitutional rights were violated. We conclude these claims either were not preserved for appeal or have no merit.