BRUCE P. MACVEAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1987-02-25
No. 4-86-1683
Downey, J., Walden, J., Stone, J.
503 So. 2d 411 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1987)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Fourth District affirmed that claimants must repay improperly received unemployment benefits without equitable defenses, which are available only when the state seeks recoupment from future benefits.


Holding

Section 443.151(6)(b), Florida Statutes, requires repayment of improperly received unemployment benefits without resort to equitable defenses, which are available only when the state seeks recoupment from future benefits.


Headnotes

[1] Equitable defenses to repayment of improperly received unemployment benefits under section 443.151(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are available only when the state seeks recoup…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

MacVean received unemployment benefits and was later found ineligible for those benefits. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission determined he wa…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals a decision of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission determining that he is obligated to repay benefits for which he was later found ineligible.

This court has previously interpreted section 443.151(6)(b), Florida Statutes, to require repayment of improperly received benefits without resort to the defenses of equity and good conscience. Those defenses, found under subsection (c) of the statute, are only available to claimants from whom the state seeks recoupment out of future benefits at the time they become payable. Sheppard v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 442 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Accord Sheppard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 492 So. 2d 827 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). We acknowledge conflict with the following cases: Cassady v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 495 So. 2d 255 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Renelus v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 484 So. 2d 629 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Comer v. State, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 481 So. 2d 67 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Garcia v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 426 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Sagaert v. State, De partment of Labor and Employment Security Unemployment Appeals Commission, 418 So. 2d 1228 (Fla.3d DCA 1982).

The decision of the appeals commission is affirmed.

DOWNEY, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw