Glanner v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n

• Decision Date: 15 July 1986
• Citation: 132 Wis.2d 479,392 N.W.2d 848
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. ADRIAN J. GLANNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION and MODERN PAINTING & DECORATING, INC., Respondents. 85-2132.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 848

392 N.W.2d 848

132 Wis.2d 479

NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES.

ADRIAN J. GLANNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v.LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION and MODERN PAINTING &amp DECORATING, INC., Respondents.

85-2132.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

July 15, 1986.

Circuit Court, Brown County

Affirmed

Appeal from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Brown county: Vivi L. Dilweg, Judge.

Before CANE, P.J., DEAN and LaROCQUE, JJ.

CANE, Presiding Judge.

Adrian Glanner appeals the trial court's judgment affirming the Labor & Industry Review Commission's decision ordering Glanner to repay $5,096 of erroneously paid unemployment benefits and the order denying his motion for reconsideration.Glanner argues that the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations is equitably estopped from recovering the overpayment, waived its right to recoup the benefits, and failed to give him a proper evidentiary hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel.We find no merit in Glanner's arguments and we therefore affirm.

After Glanner left his job with Modern Painting and Decorating, Inc., a corporation in which he was a minority shareholder, he applied for and received unemployment compensation benefits.Approximately eight months later, the department issued an initial determination alleging that Glanner was ineligible for benefits because he had quit his job.Glanner appealed this determination, and a hearing examiner decided that Glanner had quit without good cause but that he was not required to repay the benefits received.The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed by the commission.

The department later issued another initial determination alleging that Glanner was required to repay certain benefits because he had an ownership interest in his former employer greater than 25%.Seesec. 108.04(1)(g), Stats. Glanner again appealed to a hearing examiner and to the commission, which both affirmed the department's determination.Glanner then commenced an action for judicial review, and the trial court affirmed the commission's decision.

It is undisputed that Glanner had an ownership interest of greater than 25% in Modern Painting, and that his corporate shareholder status made him ineligible for $5,096 of the benefits he was paid.It is also undisputed that when Glanner applied for unemployment compensation, he truthfully disclosed his corporate ownership status, and that department employees failed to properly review the application.Glanner was unaware that his corporate ownership limited his eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Glanner contends that the department is equitably estopped from recouping any benefits because the department's own error caused the overpayment.The defense of equitable estoppel consists of action by one party that induces reasonable reliance by the other party to his or her detriment.Amtronix Industries v. LIRC, 115 Wis.2d 108, 116, 339 N.W.2d 802, 806(Ct. App.1983)(citingChicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Thoreson Food Products, Inc., 71 Wis.2d 143, 153-54, 238 N.W.2d 69, 75(1976)).In order to estop a government agency, the government's conduct must amount to fraud.State v. City of Green Bay, 96 Wis.2d 195, 203, 291 N.W.2d 508, 512(1980).In this context, the word fraud is synonymous with 'unconscientious' or 'inequitable.'Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Wisconsin Department of Taxation, 260 Wis. 551, 558-59, 51 N.W.2d 796, 800(1952).

In cases involving the government, this court must decide on a case-by-case basis whether justice requires the application of the doctrine of estoppel.City of Green Bay, 96 Wis.2d at 202, 291 N.W.2d at 511.Generally, we examine the record to determine whether the commission's decision is supported by any credible evidence.Amtronix, 115 Wis.2d at 114, 339 N.W.2d at 805(quotingStafford Trucking, Inc. v. DILHR, 102 Wis.2d 256, 260, 306 N.W.2d 79, 82(Ct. App.1981));see alsosec. 102.23(6), Stats.In this case, however, the commission made no factual findings relative to the estoppel defense because it has no power to rule on equitable issues.SeeYunker v. LIRC, 115 Wis.2d 525, 531, 341 N.W.2d 703, 706(Ct. App.1983).We therefore review the factual findings of the trial court, which we will uphold unless they are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.City of Green Bay, 96 Wis.2d at 204, 291 N.W.2d at 512.

Because the department payed Glanner unemployment benefits and failed to raise the corporate ownership issue at the first hearing, the...