Edgar Mason v. Illinois Department of Human Services

ORDER

Birnbaum, J.

This matter coming before the Court to be heard on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the Court being fully advised in the premises finds that:

On December 6, 2007, Claimant brought the instant case in the Court of Claims against Respondent, State of Illinois, seeking $13,000.00 in damages.

Claimant alleges that the Department of Human Services took his tax refunds between 2001 and 2005 because "Kathryn Taylor whom [Claimant and Ms. Taylor] had in the past lived together stated that she had owed some funds to the Department of Human Services."

Claimant is seeking recovery of his tax refunds.

[*154] ANALYSIS

A. Claimant Fails to State a Claim.

Claimant alleges that the Illinois Department of Human Services ("DHS") erroneously took his tax refunds for a debt he did not incur.

However, DHS had authority to collect Claimant and Kathryn Taylor's federal tax refunds for the overpayment of food stamps pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2022(b) and 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 165.104(e).

Under Section 2022 of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2022(a)(4), if an individual

receives an overpayment of food stamps, each adult member of that household is jointly

and severally liable for the overpayment.

In order to collect overpayment of food stamps, a

state agency may recover from the federal tax refund of any adult member of that

household.

7 U.S.C. § 2022(b)(1)(C); 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 165.104(e).

The Respondent has attached to its Motion to Dismiss the affidavit of Rick L.

Matchett, Administrative Assistant II for the Bureau of Collections at DHS.

According to Mr.

Matchett's affidavit, Claimant and Ms. Taylor were living in the same household between

1989 and 1995.

During this time, Ms. Taylor received food stamps.

As a recipient of food

stamps, she was obligated to report household income and any changes in household

membership to DHS.

Between June 1989 and August 1992, Ms. Taylor received an overpayment of food

stamps in the amount of $8,182.00 because she failed to report her income from Robinson

Bus Service.

Between November 1993 and February 1995, Ms. Taylor received another

overpayment of food stamps in the amount of $1,725.00 because she failed to report her

income from Robinson Bus Service, her unemployment benefits, and Sibil Mason's no

longer residing in the household.

[*155] In 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005, Claimant and Ms. Taylor filed joint federal tax

returns.

To collect on the overpayment of food stamps which Ms. Taylor received between

1989 and 1995, DHS offset Claimant and Ms. Taylor's tax refund by $4,033.25 in February

2001, $480.60 (from a stimulus rebate) in September 2001, $5,532.80 in February 2003,

$786.80 in August 2003, $1,399.13 in November 2004, $327.68 in April 2005, and

$1,248.66 in June 2005.

Pursuant to the Food Stamp Act and DHS Regulations, DHS was entitled to Claimant

and Ms. Taylor's tax refunds because both were adult members of a household which

received food stamps in excess of the eligible amount.

7 U.S.C. § 2022(a)(4), (b)(1)(C); 89

Ill. Admin. Code § 165.104(e).

Claimant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted because DHS had authority to collect the subject refunds pursuant to the Food

Stamp Act and DHS Regulations. Id.

B.

Claimant Has Failed to Exhaust All Other Remedies.

Claimant has failed to exhaust all other remedies available to him.

The Court of

Claims Act and Regulations require the Claimant to exhaust all other remedies against all

other sources of recovery for injury or damages prior to seeking a final determination of

his claim in the Court of Claims.

705 ILCS 505/25; 74 Ill. Admin. Code 790.60.

This Court

has previously held that it does not "recognize any discretion on the part of claimants to

pick and choose whom they wish to sue."

Boe v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 72 (1984).

Claimant has the remedy of filing an injured spouse claim with the Internal Revenue

Service available to him.

The Respondent has attached to its Motion to Dismiss IRS Form

8379 and Instructions.

According to Mr. Matchett's affidavit, in the event a married couple

files a joint federal tax return and their refund is offset to pay for one of the spouse's past[*156]

due debt, the other spouse may file an injured spouse claim to recover all or part of his or

her portion of the tax refund.

Claimant filed an injured spouse claim for the offsets occurring in 2001.

As a result, he was refunded $4,033.25 for the 2001 tax refund offset and $246.18 for the 2001 stimulus rebate offset.

Claimant also filed an injured spouse claim for the February 2003 offset.

As a result, he was refunded $311.00 for that offset.

The remedy of an injured spouse claim is still available to Claimant for the tax refund offsets occurring in August 2003, November 2004, and April and June 2005.

Claimant has failed to comply with the Court of Claims Act and Regulations as he failed to exhaust all other sources of possible recovery.

Accordingly, Section 790.90 of the Court of Claims Regulations demands dismissal for failure to comply with the provisions in Section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations requiring exhaustion of remedies.

C. The Court of Claims Lacks Jurisdiction over Claimant's Alleged Claim.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over Claimant's alleged claim.

This Court has exclusive

and limited jurisdiction over claims against the State of Illinois as set forth in the Court of

Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/1 et seq.

In his Complaint, Claimant fails to reference any section

of the Court of Claims Act as a jurisdictional basis of his alleged claim.

Claimant's alleged

claim does not fall under any of the enumerated jurisdictional bases set forth in 705 ILCS

505/8.

Therefore, Claimant's alleged claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

D. The Statute of Limitations Has Expired on Claimant's Alleged Claim.

[*157] Assuming arguendo that this Court has jurisdiction over Claimant's alleged claim,

the only category the alleged claim appears to fall under is Section 505/8(a) of the Court of

Claims Act, in which case, the statute of limitations has expired.

For a claim under Section 8(a), the statute of limitations is two years from the date the claim accrues.

705 ILCS 505/22(h).

Claimant's alleged claim accrued between September 2001 and June 2005 when DHS offset Claimant and Ms. Taylor's tax refunds.

Claimant filed this suit with the Court of Claims on December 6, 2007, which was more than two years after his alleged claim accrued.

Because the statute of limitations is jurisdictional and Claimant has failed to file in a timely manner, the Court of Claims is unable to enter any award.

750 ILCS 505/22(j); Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. State, 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 345 (1981).

Therefore, this claim is dismissed because this Court does not have jurisdiction over the alleged claim and, even if it did, Claimant failed to file it within the two years of his cause of action first accruing under 705 ILCS 505/22(h).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion be, and the same is, hereby granted, and the claim herein is dismissed, with prejudice.