Lloyd Ben v. State of Illinois

ORDER

STEFFEN, J. This matter coming to be heard on the motion of Respondent to Dismiss the claim herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice, and the Court being fully advised in the premises finds that:

I. CLAIMANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Claimant filed this claim as a claim against the Illinois Department of Public Aid (“IDPA”) in the amount of $3,219.36. As of July 1, 2005, IDPA is now called the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (“HFS”).

To reflect that name change Respondent, herein, will be referred to as HFS.

Claimant alleges that on January 13, 1986 a judgment was entered that determined him to be the father of Santana Grayer. (Complaint Paragraph (“C.P.”) 1) On that same day a Child Support Order was entered that $80.00 per month was for child support through the Clerk of the Circuit Court. (C.P.2) Claimant alleges that a total of $3,339.36 was collected from Claimant for child [*354] support. (C.P.3) On March 4, 20031, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an order that vacated the January 13, 1986 order of support. (C.P.4) After the January 13, 1986 order was vacated on March 4, 2003, Claimant requested reimbursement from HFS. (C.P.5). Claimant alleges that HFS refunded the amount of $120.00 and that Claimant is now owed $3,219.36. (C.P. 6 & 7)

II. RESPONDENT HFS’ DEPARTMENTAL REPORT

Respondent has filed a departmental report prepared by HFS in the investigation of this claim. Pursuant to Court of Claims Regulations 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.140, a departmental report is prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein.

The departmental report states in part that: Claimant was ordered by a circuit court to pay child support.

Title IV, Part D of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651, et seq.), and related regulations (45 C.F.R. 301.0, et seq.) set forth the requirements for federal funding of state child support collection activities for public assistance recipients and other custodians of minor children. Persons who accept financial aid under the Public Aid Code (PAC) Articles III, IV, V and VII are deemed to have assigned to HFS their rights to support owed them by any person responsible for providing such support, such as Claimant (up to the amount of such aid provided by HFS). HFS may also assist persons not receiving aid by furnishing such persons with support-enforcement services.

One of the resources available to the Department is that of intercepting tax refunds that would otherwise be paid to the obligor. 42 USC 664, 305 ICLS 5/10-17.3 and 5/10-17.5. 89 Ill. Admin. Code 160.7(c) outlines the procedures which are followed in effecting intercepts in such cases. HFS procedures for tax intercepts must “provide for notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the responsible relative.” 305 ILCS 10-17.3 and 5/10-17.5. Currently, HFS’ rules and regulations provide said due process in an administrative hearing wherein a decision is rendered. The Department’s administrative decision concerning the existence and extent of a person’s obligation, which occasioned the intercepts, shall be reviewed only under and in accordance with the Administrative Review Law. Therefore, the decision is reviewable only by a court of general jurisdiction. 735 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq. 89 Ill. Admin. Code 160.70(c ) (3) provides for a preintercept notice to the responsible relative of HFS’ intent to intercept and his rights to contest the intercept and at any time request an administrative review or “redetremination: of the obligation being assertive. Either right can be exercised by sending a written request to In his complaint, Claimant actually alleges the vacating order was enter May 4, 2003. However, the order attached as an exhibit to the complaint is dated March 4, 2003.

[*355] the HFS’ Division of Child Support Enforcement. If the relative disagrees with the result of the redetermination (once notified of it in accordance with 89 Ill. Admin. Code 160.70(c )(4)(A) and (j)(7)), he is entitled to a de novo, administrative hearing, provided he makes a timely request therefore. Requirements for the conduct of such appeal hearings are set forth in 89 Ill. Admin. Code 104.100, et seq. The decision rendered as a result of this hearing is the Department’s final administrative decision, and is subject to review only by a State circuit court under ARL. (305 ILCS 5/10-17.3 and 5/10-17.5.)

Claimant was notified on each of the occasions that the Department effected a tax intercept. See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. At the time of these intercepts, HFS sent the taxintercept notice and recorded “73NOT” on the Support Enforcement History. Claimant took no steps to challenge the intercepts and has not exhausted his administrative remedies under the Department’s rules.

Because Claimant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, this action must be dismissed pursuant to 705 ICLS 505.25, 74 Ill.Adm.Code 790.60 and 790.80.

The departmental report goes on to state: Enclosed are print-outs of the Department’s records. The Department retained $3,219.36 intercepted prior to the order of March, 2003. These intercepts of a state income tax intercept of $297.56 on December 24, 2002 and a federal income intercept tax of $2,921.80 on December 11, 2002. All funds collected after March, 2003 were refunded to Mr. Ben.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Statute of Limitations Bars Claimant’s Claim That Alleges That HFS Had Wrongfully Taken from Claimant $3,219.36 On March 4, 2003, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an order that vacated the January 13, 1986 order of support.

Prior to the order of March 2003, HFS had Collected from Claimant tax intercepts totaling $3,219.36 and that all funds collected after March 2003 were refunded to Claimant.

Claimant’s cause of Action would have accrued on December 11, 2002 and December 24, 2002 (the dates of the tax intercepts).

Claimant filed the instant claim with the Court of Claims on May 15, 2006. The statute of limitations for this claim is two years. See 705 ILCS 505/22(h). The statute of limitations is jurisdictional on the Court, and failure to comply leaves the Court powerless to enter any award. Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. State of Illinois, 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 345, 349 (1981).

B. The Court of Claims Lacks Jurisdiction to Refund the Intercept of Claimant’s Federal and State Income Tax Refunds Claimant alleges that a total of $3,339.36 was collected from him for child support and that $120.00 of that amount was refunded to him, leaving a balance due of $3,219.36. (C.P. 3, 6 & 7) [*356] Claimant does not allege as to how these monies were collected by HFS. HFS’ departmental report, however, indicates that HFS intercepted Claimant’s federal and state income tax refunds totaling $3,219.36. (Exhibit 1, p. 005) According to Perkins v. State, 53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 224 (2000), the HFS tax refund intercepts are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. The HFS intercept procedure contains its own administrative review procedure, which includes judicial review by the constitutional courts via the Administrative Review Law. Id. (See also, Curwick v. State, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 242 (1992) (HFS’s intercept procedure applies to both federal and state tax refund intercepts).

Based on Perkins and Curwick, Claimant’s claim concerning the intercept of his federal and state income tax refunds should be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Respondent be, and the same is hereby granted, and the claim herein is dismissed.