RESTITUTION, Statute of limitations
CITE AS: DLEG Unemployment Insurance Agency v Darden, Oakland County Court, No. 04-059568-AE (October 22, 2004)
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Yvonne Darden
Employer: Mastanuono & Assoc., Inc.
Docket No. FSC2004-00036-173164W
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: When adjudicating whether the Agency has jurisdiction to issue a determination or redetermination requiring restitution, the 3-year limitation provision of Section 62(a) is applicable, not the 1-year period contained in Section 32a(2).
FACTS: The Agency issued a redetermination November 25, 2003 requiring restitution for benefits improperly paid for 5 weeks ending in November 2002. The Board of Review held that under Section 32a(2) the Agency did not have jurisdiction to issue the redetermination on November 25, 2003 because more than one year had passed since the unemployment checks had been issued and there was no finding of fraud on claimant’s part.
DECISION: The Agency may pursue the recovery of restitution.
RATIONALE: When two statutes cover the same general subject matter, the more specific statute must prevail over the more general statute. MESC v Westphal, 214 Mich App 261 (1995). The 3-year provision of Section 62(a) takes precedence over the 1-year provision of Section 32a(2) because Section 62(a) is more specific.