Drayton v Showcase
Digest no. 18.01
Cite as: Drayton v Showcase, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued April 6, 1983 (Docket No. B78 15173 67544).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Denise Drayton
Docket no.: B78 15173 67544
Date of decision: April 6, 1983
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The 1980 amendment to Section 62(a) is to be given retroactive effect.
FACTS: The claimant was determined eligible for unemployment benefits and received $268.00. On November 7, 1978, “The MESC determined that claimant was, in fact, ineligible for such benefits and ordered her to repay the $268.00.”
By virtue of the 1980 amendment in Section 62(a) effective January 1, 1981, the MESC was given discretion to waive restitution.
DECISION: The MESC must exercise “its discretion on the restitution issue …”
RATIONALE: “The Michigan Employment Security Act is remedial. It’s primary purpose is to relieve the stress of economic insecurity. Godsol v Unemployment Compensation Comm, 302 Mich 652; 5 NW2d 519; 142 ALR 910 (1942); Michigan Employment Security Comm v Wayne State University, 66 Mich App 26; 238 NW2d 191 (1975), lv den 396 Mich 857 (1976). Where an amendment is designed to correct an existing law, it is generally remedial and will be given retroactive effect. Lahti v Fosterling, 357 Mich 578 (1959).
“Because the amendment is to be construed retroactively, the MESC had the discretion to waive restitution. However, it has not exercised its discretion.
“We are remanding this case to the MESC to exercise its discretion and to reevaluate its decision in the light of the amendment and this opinion. The MESC must consider [claimant’s] indigence in this case in exercising its discretion.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90