Unemployment Overpayment by California

[ScottPilgrim1]

How can I legally keep from paying back unemployment money I've already spent? I'm filling out a waiver application but would like to know any other avenues I may pursue.

 

[pattytx]

There are none if your waiver is not approved, unless you file bankruptcy.

The waiver is not a dismissal of the debt, it is merely a postponement, at least in the states in which I have researched this issue.

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

What states have you researched this in and how recently?

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

Also, I was under the impression that benefit money was earned while working. I was terminated but I feel as though this money is mine since I worked for it. What grounds does the state have to ask for it back?

 

[pattytx]

Maryland and Pennsylvania. I also have over 10 years of experience in managing UI claims for national corporations. I'm not talking out of my hat here.

What do you mean by "earning" unemployment benefits? You don't pay into the unemployment fund in California.

Why does the state say you owe it back?

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

My apologies. Didn't mean to insinuate anything.

They recently had a hearing to see whether or not the state should be paying me unemployment. They found against me and now the state would like their money back.

I was under the impression that a piece of each of my paychecks was being deposited into a fund that the state would pay me out of if I should ever lose my job.

They also say I received a notice saying that I "would be paid benefits pending an Administrative Law Judge" and that if found against me I'd be liable for repayment. I don't have any record of this and I never received a proper interview from the unemployment office wherein they could explain that to me.

Much appreciate the time you're taking.

 

[pattytx]

One more time.

Why did they say you were not entitled to benefits?

The employer pays taxes to California to the UI fund 100%; the employee does not contribute.

Commentator, do you know the Administrative Law Hearing process in California?

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

They've never explicitly declared that I was not entitled to benefits. They are asking me to pay them back.

"You were notified on 8-21-10 that you would be paid benefits pending an Administrative Law Judge, decision with the understanding that if that decision were adverse to you, you would be liable for repayment of any weeks of unemployment compensated after the issuance of the notice. Since the Judge ruled against you, benefits paid are considered an overpayment."

"If it is found that the overpayment was not your fault, you may be eligible to have the overpayment waived. To apply for this waiver, complete and return the attached financial statement within 10 days."

Are you asking why my former employer said I was not entitled to benefits? That is because I was fired.

Since my unemployment was pending a court hearing, why does the state send me checks before the hearing takes place?

 

[pattytx]

I cannot speak to why California does the things it does. Your employer did not "decide" not to "give" you benefits. Following all the interviews and hearings, the state decided that the reason you were fired disqualified you from benefits.

Again, Commentator may be able to provide more information.

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

I understand. Hopefully the commentator will chime in with anything if they're familiar with any of this.

Who would I approach about conflicting amounts of payments? Should I attach a letter to my application for a waiver? Is there any way to appeal to a judge over these amounts?

 

[cbg]

I was under the impression that a piece of each of my paychecks was being deposited into a fund that the state would pay me out of if I should ever lose my job.

Then you were mistaken. There are only three states where the employee makes any contribution; yours is not one of them. In 47 out of 50 states, including yours, unemployment is entirely employer-funded.

 

[swalsh411]

And even in those few states where employees contribute you still have to qualify. It isn't paid to somebody that, for example, quits their job with no good reason.

 

[ScottPilgrim1]

"It isn't paid to somebody..."

It is paid to somebody. It was paid to me. In fact, they would like their money back.

But I've already spent it. And I wanted to know possible solutions to the problem of paying it back when I don't have it.

This was the original issue. That question has been answered. Thank you. I appreciate everyone trying to help.

 

[pattytx]

Having trouble with reading comprehension?

It's isn't paid to somebody who quit their job. The employer obviously protested and won.

 

[Banned_Princess]

"It isn't paid to somebody..."

It is paid to somebody. It was paid to me. In fact, they would like their money back.

But I've already spent it. And I wanted to know possible solutions to the problem of paying it back when I don't have it.

This was the original issue. That question has been answered. Thank you. I appreciate everyone trying to help.

They will take it out of your tax refund if you get any. then if not they will levy bank accounts and they might even garnish your wages, they can even withhold the overpay from future UI benefits, if you are eligible in the future, they will not pay the benefits, until the difference is made up.

this is not something you can fight beyond trying to be approved to collect. once they decide you were not entitled to the moneys, then thats it, you better try to get it back to them, because they will be after it until it is paid.