McCoy v. Albin
298 Neb. 297
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 1995 the Nebraska Department of Labor mailed Troy McCoy a notice that he had been overpaid $850 in unemployment benefits; he did not appeal or repay then.
- In 2016 the State intercepted McCoy’s Nebraska income tax refund ($293) to apply toward that overpayment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-665(1)(c); McCoy appealed pro se.
- An appeal tribunal found the interception barred by Nebraska’s statute(s) of limitations (citing §§ 25-206 and 25-218 and alternatively § 25-1515); 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 Supreme Court analyzed § 48-665’s text and related setoff statutes, concluded the Legislature intended tax-refund setoffs to operate without the general limitations periods cited by McCoy, and found the notice of overpayment is not a court judgment for purposes of § 25-1515.
- Holding: No statute of limitations bars the Department from intercepting a state income tax refund to offset an unemployment overpayment; the district court’s decision is reversed with directions to reverse the tribunal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state tax-refund offset under § 48-665(1)(c) is subject to general statutes of limitations (e.g., §§ 25-206, 25-218) | McCoy: the Department’s setoff is time-barred by the 4-year (and related) limitations statutes | Department: § 48-665(1)(c) contains no limitations period; general limitations for actions do not apply to administrative tax-refund setoffs; waiver argument alternative | Court: No limitations apply to § 48-665(1)(c) setoffs; legislative scheme shows some remedies have limits while tax-refund setoffs do not; reverse lower courts |
| Whether § 25-1515 (dormant-judgment rule) prevents setoff due to lapse since last execution | McCoy: prior interception/execution elapsed >5 years so judgment dormant, blocking further collection | Department: notice of overpayment is not a court judgment; § 25-1515 applies only to judgments rendered by courts of record | Court: § 25-1515 does not apply because the overpayment notice is administrative, not a court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion’s v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 982 (2015) (administrative appeal standard and review of agency decisions)
- ML Manager v. Jensen, 287 Neb. 171 (2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 267 Neb. 586 (2004) (rules on ascertaining legislative intent and statutory construction)
- Tiedtke v. Whalen, 133 Neb. 301 (1937) (definition and commencement of civil actions)