IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 18–1329 Filed May 29, 2020 TERRI ENDRESS, Appellee, vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge. DHS seeks further review of a court of appeals decision. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, and Tabitha J. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Trent W. Nelson of Sellers, Galenbeck & Nelson, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice. In this case, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) waited two years to attempt recoupment of $16,003.94 for child-care services rendered by the provider during agency review of her cancelled provider agreement. We must decide whether the provider was given constitutionally sufficient notice of DHS’s intent to recoup payments. DHS sent a notice cancelling the agreement. The notice advised the provider of a right to appeal but cautioned, “Any benefits you get while your appeal is being decided may have to be paid back if the Department’s action is correct.” On appeal, DHS affirmed its decision to cancel the provider’s agreement. Years later, DHS also found that the provider had to pay back the $16,003.94. On judicial review, the district court reversed DHS’s decision on recoupment. It reasoned DHS’s notice to the provider did not afford her procedural due process. The district court, however, denied attorney fees to the provider under Iowa Code section 625.29(1)(b) (2017). On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court on the merits while reversing with respect to the award of attorney fees. We granted further review. Upon our review, we conclude DHS’s notice meets procedural due process requirements. However, we also conclude that DHS erred in refusing to consider the provider’s unjust- enrichment defense to the recoupment proceeding. On remand to the agency, the provider should be allowed an opportunity to raise unjust enrichment as an offset to DHS’s effort to recoup overpayments. With respect to attorney fees, DHS’s role was primarily adjudicative, and it is not liable for attorney fees. Therefore, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court. We remand the case to the district court to remand to DHS for consideration of the provider’s equitable relief. 3 Three justices of this court have joined this entire opinion. The concurrence in part and dissent in part filed by Justice McDonald on behalf of three justices joins divisions III.A and III.C of this opinion, while dissenting as to division III.B. The concurrence in part and dissent in part filed by Justice Appel contingently joins division III.B of this opinion, while dissenting as to divisions III.A and III.C. Accordingly, this opinion controls all aspects of the resolution of this appeal. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. In 2012, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals