The opinion
oe
©
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-03-2
a 2EC chm lhe
PETER C. NEALEY NOU NeY -7 A 155 Bec Chi | i 7
Petitioner, ORDER ON
PETITIONER’S
v. DONALDS 6s. 80C APPEAL
Lay ite ce lyk
PETER E. WALSH “
Respondent. NOV 26 2003
Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to consider
evidence of child support payments made by Petitioner prior to November 7, 2002. A
party challenging a decision of an administrative agency bears the burden of proving
that the decision was improper. See Bischoff v. Board of Trustees, 661 A.2d 167, 170
(1995). For the following reasons, the court finds that the Petitioner has not established
that the decision of the Hearing Officer was improper.
On November 7, 2002, the State of Maine Department of Human Services
(Department) issued to Petitioner a Notice of Debt, which was served via certified mail
on November 15, 2002. Section 2.a of the Notice of Debt stated that Petitioner’s child
support debt from May 31, 1996 through November 7, 2002 totaled $1,073.05, and that
it was continuing to accrue at $150.00 per week. Sections 7.a. and 7.e. of the Notice of
Debt stated that Petitioner could contest the amount of debt within thirty days by
requesting an administrative hearing, and that if he failed to do so, he would lose his
right to contest the debt. The Department did not receive a timely request from the
Petitioner for an administrative hearing to contest the Notice of Debt.
On December 31, 2002, the Department issued a Notice of Lien against Petitioner.
On January 3, 2003, Petitioner filed a request for an administrative hearing. The
request, however, did not state whether it was submitted in response to the Notice of
Debt or the Notice of Lien. The hearing was held on February 2, 2003. At the hearing,
the Petitioner attempted to introduce evidence of payments made prior to November
7, 2002, and the Hearing Officer refused to consider the Petitioner’s records, as they
pertained to payments made prior to the Notice of Debt.
Given that Petitioner waited until after thirty days from receiving the Notice of
Debt to challenge the amount of child support owed as of November 7, 2002, the
Hearing Officer’s refusal to consider evidence of payments made prior to November 7,
2002 was not clearly erroneous and must be affirmed. Imagineering, Inc. v.
Superintendent of Ins., 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991).
In addition, the Petitioner did not properly raise the issue before the Department
before bringing a challenge in the Superior Court. See Wells v. Portland Yacht Club,
2001 ME 20, { 5, 771 A.2d 371, 373. Therefore, he is precluded from obtaining judicial
review of the Department’s determination of the amount of his child support debt as of
November 7, 2002. See Oliver v. City of Rockland, 1998 ME 88, J 7, 710 A.2d 905, 907.
The entry is
The decision of the Respondent is AFFIRMED.
Dated at Portland, Maine this 4th day of November, 2003.
il
Robert E. Crowley
Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed___ 94-02-03
Cumberland
Docket No. AP-03-24
Action 80C Appeal
County
PETER C. NEALEY
STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
vs.
Plaintiff's Attorney
PRO SE
Peter C. Nealey
43 Towpath Road
Gorham, ME 04038
(207) 892-4479
Date of
Defendant’s Attorney
Carlos Diaz
Assistant Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
6-State-Heuse-Statien 44 Oak St., 4th Fli
Augusta;—Matne-04333-—0006-Portland, ME
(207) 822-0260 0410]