Martin v. Division of Employment Security
384 S.W.3d 378
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Martin filed unemployment claims for weeks ending June 24, 2006 and July 8, 2006 and was overpaid $386 for failing to report earnings.
- A fraud penalty of 25% of the overpayment ($96.50) was assessed on January 17, 2007; the penalty was paid by intercepting an $85.48 tax refund, leaving an $11.02 balance.
- In 2011, Section 288.040.9 was amended to make a claimant ineligible for benefits while any outstanding penalty from an overpayment remained unpaid, effective upon enactment.
- Martin applied for benefits in April 2011; the Division issued an eligibility ineligibility determination in July 2011 due to the remaining penalty balance.
- Martin paid the remaining $11.02 on July 5, 2011 and then claimed benefits for the subsequent week; the Appeals Tribunal found ineligibility from April 17, 2011 through July 2, 2011.
- The Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal; Martin argues the amendment’s retroactive application and lack of notice were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 288.040.9's retrospective application is proper. | Martin asserts retroactive effect. | Commission argues prospective effect within amendment. | Not retroactive; prospective effect, no change in prior penalty. |
| Whether due process required notice of the penalty amount or the amendment’s impact. | Martin claims lack of notice violated due process. | Martin had notice of the penalty and its collection because of prior determinations and intercept. | Notice of penalty amount supported; due process issue not satisfied for notice of amendment impact. |
| Whether the April 2011 notice requirement could have affected eligibility. | Martin contends she should have been notified that the amendment would make her ineligible until paid. | Not briefed; issue not properly argued on appeal. | Issue not reached/denied for lack of briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Labor and Industrial Relations Comm’n, 661 S.W.2d 54 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983) (retrospective law analysis in unemployment context; eligibility timing governed by prospective rules)
- La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. Dir. of Econ. Dev., 983 S.W.2d 523 (Mo. banc 1999) (vested rights; prospective effect of law not retroactive when no impairment of vested rights)
- Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. v. Southwestern, Bell Tele. Co., 612 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. banc 1981) (ex post facto principles; retrospective laws limit)