Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2016 Ohio 1083
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- James Cullinan was ordered to pay monthly child support; he continued mailing monthly checks even after his employer began withholding the same amounts following agency notices in November 2004.
- Employer withholding began; Cullinan did not update contact information and often did not review pay stubs showing deductions.
- Agency staff discovered Cullinan’s account was overpaid and attempted contact in 2006–2007; letters were returned because Cullinan had moved and not notified the agency.
- In March 2010 the agency placed an impound order during a termination investigation and temporarily impounded funds while investigating emancipation/termination of the obligation.
- Cullinan sued ODJFS alleging conversion, equitable restitution, and breach of fiduciary duty for alleged over-collection; the Court of Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (equitable relief), and Cullinan refiled in common pleas.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for ODJFS; this appeal challenges that ruling, arguing conversion/equitable restitution for wrongful retention of overpayments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODJFS acted wrongfully in collecting/retaining overpayments | Cullinan: ODJFS knew double payments were being collected and failed to stop, impound, or return the overpayments | ODJFS: Required by law to disburse payments within two business days; impoundment only in context of termination investigation and agency attempted contact | Held: No wrongful act as a matter of law — R.C. 3121.50 required prompt disbursement and impoundment rules apply in termination investigations only |
| Whether claim is one for equitable restitution (proper remedy and court jurisdiction) | Cullinan: Seeks return of over-collected funds / conversion and equitable relief | ODJFS: Plaintiff's relief is equitable restitution (Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction originally); but merits fail because no wrongful collection | Held: Plaintiff cannot establish equitable restitution because ODJFS did not act unlawfully in collection/retention |
| Whether administrative rule required immediate impoundment when agency was aware of overpayment | Cullinan: Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-60-50.1(D) obligated ODJFS to impound upon awareness of overpayment | ODJFS: That administrative rule applies only in the context of a termination investigation; plaintiff raised it too late in reply brief | Held: OAC provision applies to termination investigations; plaintiff’s late-raised argument also rejected as untimely |
| Effect of plaintiff’s failure to update contact info on agency’s duty to notify | Cullinan: His negligence is irrelevant | ODJFS: Cullinan had duty under parenting plan and statute to notify agency of address/phone changes; agency’s inability to contact him excused further action | Held: Cullinan’s failure to update contact information undermines his argument that ODJFS negligently failed to notify him or act sooner |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (claims seeking return of specific funds wrongfully collected are equitable restitution; wrongful statutory collections support restitution)
- Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (reimbursement of monies withheld under invalid administrative rule is equitable relief)
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (9th Dist. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment articulated)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (summary judgment standards and appellate review principles)