OAH-43-6227-19642-2
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
FOR
|
In
the Matter of the Revenue Recapture Hearing, |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER |
The above entitled matter came on for hearing before
Administrative Law Judge Scott Newman commencing at 9:30 A.M. on May 13, 2008
at the Blue Earth County Human Services Office.
The hearing was held in accordance with a Notice and Order for Hearing
dated April 28, 2008.
Mark Lindahl, Assistant Blue Earth County Attorney, appeared
on behalf of
There being no procedural objections made by either party
and it appearing that both parties were present and prepared to proceed, the
hearing was held with the record being closed on May 13, 2008 at the conclusion
of the hearing.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Whether the
County may collect payment on the alleged debt under the collection procedures
set forth in the Revenue Recapture Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 270A.01-270A.12.
2. Whether the
County has sustained its burden of proof as to the amounts due on the alleged
debt.
3. Whether the
County’s Revenue Recapture Claim should be dismissed on the basis of the
following affirmative defenses:
a) Coercion;
b) Improper
or inappropriate action by the County in placing the Appellant’s son in foster
care.
Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 17,
2007, an emergency review hearing was held before the Honorable Bradley C.
Walker, Judge of District Court at the Blue Earth County Courthouse in
2. On July 18,
2007, a hearing was held before the Honorable Bradley C. Walker, Judge of
District Court, at Blue Earth County Courthouse concerning the welfare of
LWJ. Appellant was present at that
hearing. Following the hearing, it was
ordered that LWJ shall remain in the custody of
3. On June 18,
2007, Appellant petitioned Blue Earth County Human Services for a waiver of
parental contribution and child support which was claimed by the County.[3]
4. On July 18,
2007, the Appellant signed an Agreement running in favor of
5. On August 20,
2007 the County informed the Appellant that her Petition for waiver was denied.[5]
6. On August 31,
2007 a hearing was held before the Honorable Bradley C. Walker, Judge of
District Court, at Blue Earth County Courthouse Mankato Minnesota. Appellant was present at that hearing. As a result of said hearing, custody remained
with
7. The total
claim by the County consists of parental contribution for placement with Blue Earth
County Human Services for foster care May 17, 2007 through August 14, 2007 in
the amount of $16.00, child support payments received by the Appellant in the
amount of $1,300.60 from May 17, 2007 through August 14, 2007, and a mental
health assessment charge incurred by the County on August 9, 2007 in the amount
of $124.00 for a total of $1,440.60.[7]
8. On October
22, 2007, the Appellant orally agreed with the County to reimburse the County
in the amount of $1,440.60 at the rate of $30.00 per month, beginning no later
than October 31, 2007.[8]
9. Between May
17, 2007 and August 31, 2007, child support payments in the amount of $1,300.60
were paid by the minor child’s father to the Lincoln-Lyon County Human Services
Department.[9]
10. Sometime after
September 1, 2007, Lincoln-Lyon County Human Services paid to the Appellant child
support payments in the amount of $1,300.60.[10]
11. Despite
repeated requests, the Appellant has not paid any portion of the claimed
$1,440.60 to the County.[11]
12. On March 7,
2008, the County placed the Appellant on notice of the County’s intent to
proceed with collection of the debt under the Minnesota Revenue Recapture Act, Minn.
Stat. ch. 270A.[12]
13. On April 20,
2008, the Appellant notified the County in writing of her request for an appeal
hearing to contest the validity of the County’s claim. [13]
14. A hearing was
held in accordance with the request for appeal filed by the Appellant before
the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on May 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., at
Blue Earth County Human Services in
15. The Appellant testified
that she was “forced” to sign the MA Parental Contribution Calculation and
Agreement (Ex. 6) by County employees “if she ever wanted to get her son back.”[14]
16. The Appellant also
testified at various times during the hearing as follows:
a.
That she agreed that she owed “something,” but offered no
evidence as to what that amount may be.
b.
She needed child support payments to meet her expenses which
included apartment rent, food and entertainment expense.
c.
She was not responsible for any foster care expenses because
the County was wrong for placing her son in foster care.
d.
She would pay the amount claimed, but for the fact that she
lost her job on October 14, 2007, and to date remains unemployed.
e.
If given additional time to pay the amount claimed, she felt
she could obtain the funds from “other sources.”[15]
Based on the Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction in this matter
pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 270A.07 thru 270A.12.
2. The Notice of
Hearing is proper in all respects and the County has complied with all
substantive and procedural requirements of law and rule.
3. The County
has the right to collect payment from the appellant for child support payments,
foster care expenses and unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the County
under the collection procedure set forth in the Revenue Recapture Act, Minn.
Stat. §§ 270A.01 thru 270A.12.
4. The County
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Appellant owes it the sum of
$1,440.60.
5. The Appellant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County coerced her
into assuming the debt.
6. The Appellant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County has acted
improperly in the way it has tried to collect the debt.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative
Law Judge makes the following:
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. The Appellant’s
appeal from the County’s collection under the Revenue Recapture Act is hereby DENIED.
2.
Dated: June 9, 2008
s/Scott J. Newman
|
SCOTT
J. NEWMAN Administrative
Law Judge |
Reported: Digitally Recorded
NOTICE
This is a final decision.
It is subject to judicial review as set forth in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63
to 14.68 (2000). Any appeal must be
filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals and served upon the other party
within thirty days of the receipt of this Order.
MEMORANDUM
Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are District Court Orders which placed
custody of the Appellant’s minor child with
Exhibit No. 6 is a document signed by the Appellant wherein
she agrees to pay the parental contribution of four dollars per month for
foster care, and be responsible for all medical expenses on behalf of the
minor. Therefore,
Taken as a whole, Exhibits 1-15 overwhelmingly prove that
the Appellant is indebted to
1. That she
needed the child support payments to meet her current living expenses. Minnesota Law is well established that child
support payments are to be used for the benefit of the minor child and not the
parent. Moreover, Exhibit B specifically
ordered that the child support payments in question were assigned and to be
paid to
2. She felt she
was not responsible for the underlying expenses because the County was wrong
for placing her child in foster care.
Note should be taken that the Appellant was present at all three of the
court appearances described in Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 herein. In addition, Minn. Stat. § 270A.09,
subd. 2, specifically states that no issue may be raised at a Revenue Recapture
Hearing which has been previously litigated.
On the basis of that statute, it is the position of the Administrative
Law Judge that the Office of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction
to re-determine the appropriateness of whether the minor child should have been
placed in foster care.
3. The Appellant
asks to be excused from payment because she is currently unemployed. Unemployment or underemployment is not a
legal defense to the Minnesota Revenue Recapture Act, Minn. Stat.
§ 270A.01, et. seq.
4. The Appellant
states that if given additional time she would pay the amount claimed from
other sources, and at other times during her testimony admits that she owes the
County certain sums but offers no proof of the amount she owes. Such “admissions” are completely at odds with
her affirmative defense of coercion and the defenses raised at Paragraphs 1-3
hereof.
In evaluating the credibility of the testimony of a
witness, the fact finder may take into consideration the following factors:
a.
Will a witness gain or lose if the case is decided in a
certain way?
b.
What is the witness’s relationship to the parties?
c.
How did the witness learn the facts?
d.
What was the witness’s manner?
e.
Did the witness seem honest and sincere?
f.
Was the witness frank and direct?
g.
Is the witness’s testimony reasonable compared with other evidence?
h.
Are there any other factors that bear on believability and weight?
i.
In addition, the fact finder should “rely on your
experience, good judgment and common sense.”[16]
Using these factors as guidelines in evaluating the
testimony of the Appellant, it is clear that her testimony is not credible or
accurate. Rather, the Appellant used a
shotgun approach leveling every excuse she could think of as a reason for not
fulfilling her legal obligation to reimburse
S. J. N.
[1] Ex. 1.
[2] Ex. 2.
[3] Ex. 15.
[4] Ex. 6.
[5] Ex. 7 and 15.
[6] Ex. 3.
[7] Ex. 13.
[8] Exs. 5 and 14.
[9] Testimony of Sheila Westphal and testimony of Appellant.
[10] Test. of S. Westphal and test. of Appellant.
[11] Test. of S. Westphal and test. of Appellant; Ex. 5.
[12] Ex. 9.
[13] Ex. 10.
[14] Test. of Appellant.
[15] Test. of Appellant.
[16] CIVJIG 12.15 Evaluation of Testimony-Credibility of
Witnesses.