Sabo v. Job Service North Dakota, 925 N.W.2d 437

James Sabo, owner/officer of Fun-Co., received unemployment benefits after a fire damaged his business.
Job Service initially paid $630/week for 26 weeks, then issued a November 9, 2017 reconsidered monetary determination reducing benefits to $67/week based on Sabo’s ownership interest.
The reconsidered determination warned Sabo he must appeal by November 21, 2017; Sabo did not appeal that determination.
Job Service later issued a notice of overpayment for $14,638 and Sabo appealed the overpayment notice (but not the earlier monetary determination).
An Appeals Referee found Sabo’s challenges to the November 9 determination were collateral attacks barred because he failed to appeal it, affirmed the $14,638 overpayment, and directed Sabo to seek waiver consideration from the Collections Unit.
The district court affirmed the administrative decision; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the agency’s decision was lawful and supported by the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Job Service wrongly determined Sabo was overpaid by applying N.D.C.C. § 52-06-04(2)	Sabo: Job Service misinterpreted § 52-06-04(2) so he was not overpaid	Job Service: Sabo failed to appeal the November 9 monetary determination; that determination is final and cannot be collaterally attacked	Held: Decision final; collateral attack barred; overpayment affirmed
Whether § 52-06-16 prevents finality of the November 9 determination	Sabo: § 52-06-16 (reconsideration) means the determination is not final yet	Job Service: § 52-06-16 is like Rule 60(b) — allows limited reopening but does not delay finality	Held: § 52-06-16 does not delay finality; it permits limited reopening only
Whether the overpayment amount was supported by the evidence	Sabo: If overpaid, amount should be recalculated or waived	Job Service: Overpayment equals amount actually paid minus amount that should have been paid under the unappealed determination	Held: Appeals Referee’s calculation ($14,638) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence
Whether Sabo was entitled to a waiver as contrary to equity and good conscience	Sabo: Recovery would be inequitable; referee should decide waiver now	Job Service: Collections Unit has discretion to consider waiver; claimant must apply to Collections	Held: Issue not ripe — Sabo never applied to Collections; referee properly directed him to seek discretionary waiver there

Blume Constr., Inc. v. State ex rel. Job Service N.D., 872 N.W.2d 312 (2015) (deferential review of agency factfinding; questions of law reviewed de novo)
Fischer v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 530 N.W.2d 344 (N.D. 1995) (administrative res judicata prevents collateral attacks on final agency orders)
Hector v. City of Fargo, 844 N.W.2d 542 (2014) (agency adjudicative proceedings resolve disputed issues when parties had adequate opportunity to litigate)
Heasley v. Engen, 124 N.W.2d 398 (N.D. 1963) (unappealed administrative decisions become final and not subject to collateral attack)
Comes v. State, 907 N.W.2d 393 (2018) (courts do not issue advisory opinions; issues must be ripe)
Bies v. Obregon, 558 N.W.2d 855 (1997) (ripeness explained; issues depending on future contingencies are premature)