State unemployment benefits are paid pursuant to a system that relies on trust. Benefits are paid based on representations made by claimants that they are out of work and that they continue to seek out full-time work. If a claimant finds part-time work, then benefits are reduced accordingly.
A recent opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the “Court”) addresses a Chapter 7 debtor’s attempt to discharge a debt owed to the State of Michigan for overpaid unemployment benefits, and penalties and interest stemming from the overpayment.
The case involves an adversary proceeding brought by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Unemployment Insurance Agency (the “Agency”), in which the Agency seeks a determination that the debts owed by the debtor are nondischargeable under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. 
In this case the debtor applied for and received unemployment benefits over the course of approximately two years. During this two year period, however, the debtor was employed part-time by the City of Grand Rapids. The debtor failed to report his part-time employment and wages when he certified his eligibility for unemployment benefits with the Agency. After the Debtor’s part-time employment and wages were discovered, the Agency issued an administrative redetermination finding that the debtor owed $7,984 in restitution for the overpayments and $31,416 in statutory penalties.
The debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought discharge of the debts. The Bankruptcy Court found that the debtor “obtained the benefit overpayments by intentionally and fraudulently misrepresenting his employment and earnings to the Agency.”
The Court’s Analysis
Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that debts based on false pretenses, false representations or actual fraud are nondischargeable, and section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that debts are not dischargeable if they are penalties “payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit” that are “not compensation of actual pecuniary loss.”
The Agency argued that the Court should be bound, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel (also referred to as issue preclusion), by the prior determinations made during administrative proceedings related to the debtor’s receipt of overpayments. In particular, the prior administrative redetermination issued by the Agency related to the overpayment of benefits included findings of fact concerning the debtor’s “intentional” failure to disclose “material facts” about his employment. To the extent that the Court was bound by the administrative findings pursuant to collateral estoppel, then issues related to the debtor’s alleged fraudulent conduct would not need to be relitigated in bankruptcy.
The Court started its collateral estoppel analysis by noting that while the federal full faith and credit statute applies only to prior state court judgments, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a common law rule that, under certain circumstances, gives preclusive effect to state administrative decisions. The Supreme Court, in the case of University of Tenn. v. Elliot, 478 U.S. 788, explained that, “when a state agency acting in a judicial capacity...resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, federal courts must give the agency’s fact finding the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State’s courts.” The U.S. Court of Appeals noted in Herrera v. Churchill McGee, LLC, 680 F.3d 539, however, that while “[a]dministrative preclusion is favored as a matter of general policy, its suitability may vary according to the relative adequacy of agency procedures.”
Ultimately, the Court found that the Agency was not “‘acting in a judicial capacity’ and that the Debtor was not given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Agency’s allegations against him, so as to entitle the factual findings of the prior Redetermination to collateral estoppel effect under Elliot.”
The Court then turned to an analysis of whether the debts are nondischargeable under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. To except a debt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must demonstrate that:
- the debtor obtained money through a material misrepresentation that, at the time, the debtor knew was false or made with gross recklessness as to its truth;
- the debtor intended to deceive the creditor;
- the creditor justifiably relied on the false representation; and
- its reliance was the proximate cause of loss.
The Court, in ruling that the debts are nondischargeable section 523(a)(2)(A), found that the debtor did misrepresent his employment status and other earnings with the intent to deceive the agency.
The Court also ruled in favor of the Agency in connection with its claim under 523(a)(7). As stated previously, under 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code a debt is nondischargeable if it is a penalty “payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit” that are “not compensation of actual pecuniary loss.” In this case, the Court found that, based on the plain language of the statute that gave rise to the debts, “the purpose of the fraud penalties is to punish and deter fraud, and not to compensate the UIA for any actual loss.”