McCoy v. Albin
298 Neb. 297
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 1995 the Nebraska Department of Labor (Department) mailed Troy McCoy a notice that he had been overpaid $850 in unemployment benefits; McCoy did not appeal or repay at that time.
- In 2016 the Department intercepted McCoy’s Nebraska income tax refund ($293) to apply toward the 1995 overpayment; McCoy appealed the interception pro se.
- An appeal tribunal held the interception was barred by Nebraska statutes of limitation (relying on §§ 25-206/25-218 and § 25-1515), and the Department appealed to the district court.
- The Sarpy County District Court affirmed the tribunal’s decision that a limitations period barred the setoff; the Department appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
- The statutory scheme at issue is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-665(1), which permits recovery of unemployment benefit overpayments by (a) civil action, (b) offset against future benefits (with a 3-year limit), (c) setoff against state income tax refunds, and (d) setoff against federal tax refunds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCoy) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interception of a state income tax refund under § 48-665(1)(c) is subject to Nebraska statutes of limitations (e.g., §§ 25-206, 25-218, 25-1515). | Statutes of limitation apply; the tribunal relied on § 25-218/§ 25-206 to bar recovery and § 25-1515 to render prior actions dormant. | No limitations apply to tax-refund setoffs under § 48-665(1)(c); the collection method is separate from a civil action and the statute’s plain language and structure show the Legislature omitted a limitations period intentionally. | The Supreme Court held no statute of limitations applies to state refund setoffs under § 48-665(1)(c); § 25-1515 does not apply because the notice of overpayment is not a court judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion’s v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 982 (2015) (administrative review standard and statutory interpretation authority)
- ML Manager v. Jensen, 287 Neb. 171 (2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 267 Neb. 586 (2004) (principles for discerning legislative intent and construing statutes)
- Tiedtke v. Whalen, 133 Neb. 301 (1937) (defining commencement of civil actions and related procedural principles)