EDDIE JOHNSON v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2013)

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Claimant filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court having read the pleadings and being fully advised in the premises finds.

FACTS

Claimant filed this claim seeking reimbursement of alleged overpayments for child support from the Respondent (the State of Illinois, via the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services). The Complaint alleges that Claimant was the recipient of Social Security Administration (“SSA”) disability benefits. Claimant alleges that during the time he was receiving the SSA benefits, a portion of those SSA payments were intercepted by the Respondent to satisfy a child support obligation owed by Claimant pursuant to an action filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County.

Claimant alleges that his child support obligations ceased in September 1991. Claimant alleges, however, that Respondent continued to intercept the SSA payments to satisfy the purported child support obligation of Claimant. On July 11, 2001, the Lake County Circuit Court issued an order indicating that Claimant's child support obligation ceased in September 1991. Claimant alleges that the intercept of the SSA payments continued until June 29, 2006, when the Respondent informed SSA to cease the withholding.

On May 28, 2008, Claimant filed this Complaint pursuant to Section 705 ILCS 505/8(a) seeking full reimbursement for the monies withheld. Claimant alleges that the Respondent collected $16,000 of his income since September 2001.

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the following: a) Respondent should not be liable for any SSA payments withheld after December 9, 2003, the date on which the Respondent says it informed the SSA to cease withholding the child support obligation from Claimant's SSA payments; and b) the applicable two-year statute of limitations for this claim bars any claim for collection activity prior to May 28, 2006.

ANALYSIS

Claimant here states in his Complaint that he was well aware that his rights were wrongfully invaded by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (“HFS”), as early as September 1991, in that HFS (then known as the Illinois Department of Human Services) continued to intercept certain of his Social Security Disability payments for child support purposes, although Claimant's child support obligations had already lawfully ceased in said month of September, 1991. (Petition,¶¶ 3,4).

Further, and again according to Claimant's own account, Claimant, as of July 11, 2001, was plainly aware that his rights were continuously being invaded by HFS when he prepared and caused an order to be entered by the Court in Case No. 87 F 1694. Judicially recording that Claimant's child support obligations lawfully had ceased as of September 1991 and that notwithstanding said order of Court, HFS continued to intercept Claimant's income for child support purposes. (Petition, pp. 5, 6; Ex. A).

HFS did not retain any money allegedly intercepted.

Accordingly, Claimant knew beginning in September 1991, when he did not receive the entire amount of his disability payments, that his rights were being wrongfully invaded by HFS and thereafter continuously invaded, but took no action to seek and exhaust his administrative remedies to recoup same until May 28, 2008, when he filed his petition with this Court, a period of seventeen (17) years after his claim first accrued.

Normally, a cause of action accrues when the party entitled thereto could first institute the action and the statute of limitations begins to run from that time. Barnes v. State, 37 Ill.Ct.Cl. 173 (1984). Claimant's petition here is barred in that it was not filed within two (2) years after it first accrued, 705 ILCS 505/22(h), a jurisdictional prerequisite to the Claimant's right to bring his action in the Court of Claims. Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d 499 (1997).

The Claimant argues that his claim did not accrue until June 2006 because it is a continuing claim, citing in support the case of Benvenuti v. State, 25 Ill.Ct.Cl., 207 (1965). The Court finds Benvenuti to be distinguishable. As stated in Barnes, the Benvenuti case involved a contract for the construction of a public works project, the nature of which contract required its completion before the statute would toll and that such a rule, unlike here, was specifically applicable in cases of public works projects. Id. Moreover, and especially pertinent to the instant matter, the Barnes court held:

“The Claimant's contention that his claim is a continuing one is untenable, because, if otherwise, a statute of limitations might never commence to run and actions could be filed 15 or 20 years from the date a claim first accrues.”

Barnes at 178.

From the facts presented here it is apparent that the Claimant was aware as early as 1991 that his rights were being wrongfully invaded. Thus, Claimant's claim for reimbursement of collections prior to May 28, 2006, was untimely and failed to vest this Court with jurisdiction to hear this action. The Court need not address Respondent's alternate argument for dismissal at this time.

The Court notes that Claimant may still raise a claim for any withheld payments that occurred after May 28, 2006. It appears from the record that at least one such payment was made, on June 6, 2006. However, the Court advises the Claimant that this Court in the past, in ruling on similar cases involving the alleged wrongful collection of child support money by a state agency, has held that a Claimant must first exhaust all other remedies, including recovery against the individual who received the funds in question, before bringing his claim in this Court. Moore v. State, 58 Ill.Ct.Cl. 224 (2005).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the Respondent be and the same is hereby GRANTED, and the Claimant's claim is dismissed pertaining to any collections that occurred prior to May 28, 2006.

BURNS, J.