Board of Review Decision 352-MPJ4-VFK7

The claimant relied on the overpaid benefits to take out a large car loan to replace their vehicle, thereby entering into an ongoing contractual obligation. This circumstance materially altered the claimant’s position for the worse and qualifies him for a waiver under the “against equity and good conscience” prong of G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c).

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 352-MPJ4-VFK7

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny the claimant’s request for a waiver of the recovery of overpaid benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant was assessed an overpayment in the amount of $19,152.00. He applied for a waiver of recovery of the overpayment, which was denied by the agency in a determination issued on August 15, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits, which the claimant attended, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied the waiver in a decision rendered on September 27, 2025. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

The review examiner determined that, although the claimant was not at fault, recovery of the overpayment would not be against equity and good conscience or defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized, and, thus, the claimant was not entitled to a waiver of the overpayment pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c). After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to obtain additional testimony and other evidence pertaining to the claimant’s assets and purchases. The claimant attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record. 

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant was not entitled to a waiver of the overpayment pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c), is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law, where the record after remand shows that the claimant, relying on the erroneously paid unemployment benefits, took out a car loan in the amount of $30,000.00.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant retired in September, 2024 and file[d] a claim for unemployment benefits effective October 13, 2024.
2. The claimant was initially determined to be eligible to receive unemployment benefits.
3. The clamant used the benefits he received to pay down credit card debt, pay down a car loan, and pay for a vacation with his wife to celebrate retirement and 20 years of marriage. This vacation, to Aruba, cost $7,800 and took place in April, 2025.
4. In April, 2025, after the claimant returned from the above-described vacation, the determination that the claimant was eligible to receive unemployment benefits was overturned, resulting in an overpayment of $19,152. This overpayment was determined to be without fault.
5. The claimant is married and has no dependents.
6. The claimant’s wife has been disabled for many years. She is unable to work.
7. The claimant has been diagnosed with ADHD and is being evaluated from [sic] early onset dementia due to symptoms of confusion and forgetfulness, which have become worse in recent months.
8. The claimant receives monthly Social Security benefit[s] of $2,560.
9. The claimant’s wife receives a monthly Social Security benefit of $1,134.
10. In November or December of 2024, the claimant rolled over his [Company A] work pension into a [Company B] IRA. At present, the value of this IRA is approximately $393,000. He received a monthly withdrawal of $1,216 from this account.
11. The claimant and his wife have 5 bank accounts between them. The approximate total cash value of these accounts is $8,192.
12. On November 1, 2024, the claimant and his wife purchased a 2022 Honda Pilot, presently valued at approximately $21,500. This was to replace their 2004 Toyota Hylander. They had decided that it was no longer financially wise to continue repairing a 20-year-old vehicle and that they, therefore, needed to replace it with a newer vehicle. To finance this, the claimant withdrew $10,000 from his checking account for the downpayment. This $10,000 came from the buy-out/severance the claimant received from his employer at retirement. The remaining $30,000 was financed through a car loan.
13. If the claimant had not received the overpaid unemployment benefits, he and his wife would most likely have waited an additional 6-12 months to purchase a new vehicle. They would also, most likely, have purchased a less expensive vehicle.
14. As of the date of the original hearing, the above discussed car loan had a balance of approximately $29,000 outstanding (original loan + interest – payments). The minimum monthly payment on this debt is $469. The claimant and his wife have been paying $500 a month towards this debt.
15. The claimant and his wife lease an apartment. The present rent on this apartment is $2,034. In January, 2026, it will increase.
16. The claimant and his wife spend approximately $625 a month on food.
17. The claimant and his wife have internet service with a landline phone, which costs them approximately $300 a month.
18. The clamant and his wife have a cell phone plan which costs them approximately $152 a month.
19. The claimant and his wife spend approximately $175 a month on clothing.
20. The claimant and his wife have approximately $454 in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
21. The claimant and his wife pay approximately $22 a month for renter’s insurance.
22. The claimant and his wife pay approximately $150 a month for car insurance.
23. The claimant and his wife pay approximately $169 a month for health insurance.
24. The claimant and his wife pay approximately $125 a month for miscellaneous necessities, such as shampoo and dish detergent.
25. The claimant and his wife have 13 credit cards with a combined present balance of approximately $20,104. The combined minimum monthly payment on this debt is approximately $682.
26. The claimant filed an application requesting that the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) waive recovery of the present overpayment of benefits.
27. On August 15, 2025, DUA issued a determination that, as of that date, the clamant was, under MGL c. 151A 69(c), denied a waiver of recovery of the overpayment and was required to pay back the $19,152 overpayment.

28. As of December 31, 2025, the claimant’s IRA had a total value of $394,750.63. The assets in the IRA were as follows:

    a. Cash and Cash Investments                  $62,747.47

    b. Fixed Income (treasury bonds)             $19,924.53

    c. Fixed Income (Equities & ETF)   $312,078.63

29. The claimant is subject to a 30% tax on withdrawal from the above-described IRA. He is currently withdrawing $2,500 a month from the IRA. After taxes the net amount is $2,000.
30. As of January 5, 2026, the claimant is 68 years old, and his wife is 70 years old.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s original conclusion is free from error of law. After such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact except as follows. We set aside the portion of Consolidated Finding 10 that states that the claimant’s IRA is valued at approximately $393,000.00, and that his monthly withdrawal is in the amount of $1,216.00. Consolidated Findings # 28–29 contain the most recent and accurate information on the value of the claimant’s IRA and his monthly withdrawal amount. We also set aside the portion of section C of Consolidated Finding 28 that refers to Fixed Income. Per Remand Exhibit 6, the Account Summary of the claimant’s Rollover IRA, this should read Total Positions. We further set aside the portion of Consolidated Finding 29 that refers to a 30% tax on the withdrawal amount from the IRA, as the gross and net values of the withdrawal amount listed in the same findings do not suggest at 30% tax rate. Finally, we set aside the portion of Consolidated Finding #12 that refers to a 2004 Toyota Hylander, as the claimant and his wife testified during the remand hearing that it is a 2005 vehicle. In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is not eligible for the overpayment waiver. 

The claimant was denied a waiver under G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(c) The commissioner may waive recovery of an overpayment made to any individual, who, in the judgment of the commissioner, is without fault and where, in the judgment of the commissioner such recovery would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience.

The DUA regulation at 430 CMR 6.03, defines the phrase, “defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized,” as follows:

Defeat the purposes of benefits otherwise authorized means that recovery of the overpayment would deprive the overpaid claimant, or individuals dependent on the claimant, of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses. This depends upon whether the overpaid claimant or his dependents have income or financial resources sufficient for more than ordinary and necessary needs, or are dependent upon all current income for such needs. Ordinary and necessary living expenses include, but shall not be limited to:

1. fixed living expenses, such as food and clothing, rent, mortgage payments, utilities, accident and health insurance, taxes, and work-related transportation expenses;
2. medical and hospitalization expenses;
3. expenses for the support of others for whom the individual is legally responsible;
4. other miscellaneous expenses which may reasonably be considered as part of an individual’s necessary and ordinary living expenses.

This regulation further defines the phrase, “Against Equity and Good Conscience,” as follows:

Against Equity and Good Conscience means that recovery of an overpayment will be considered inequitable if an overpaid claimant, by reason of the overpayment, relinquished a valuable right or changed his or her position for the worse. In reaching such a decision, the overpaid claimant's financial circumstances are irrelevant.

Under G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c), if the claimant erroneously received unemployment benefits without fault, it is his burden to establish either that the recovery of such benefits would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or be against equity and good conscience. Here, the review examiner found that the claimant was not at fault for the overpayment, and nothing in the record indicates otherwise. Consolidated Finding 4. However, the examiner denied the claimant’s request for a waiver. The examiner concluded that recovery of the overpaid benefits would not defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized, because, although the claimant’s monthly expenses exceeded his monthly income, his assets, including a retirement account, were sufficient to allow for recovery of the overpayment without depriving the claimant of the income required for his household’s ordinary and necessary living expenses. The examiner further concluded that recovery of the overpayment would not be against equity and good conscience, because the claimant’s position was not changed for the worse as a result of receiving the overpaid benefits.

The Board has previously held that only liquid assets could be used to calculate whether the claimant has sufficient income and resources to meet his ordinary and necessary living expenses. See Board of Review Decision 0016 7937 34 (Mar. 9, 2016). This is because non-liquid assets, such as retirement accounts that would be subject to significant penalties for early withdrawal, would not be accessible on a monthly basis to pay for ordinary and necessary living expenses. Here, the claimant’s IRA, which had a value of $394,750.63 as of December 31, 2025, is a liquid asset because the claimant, who is 68-years-old, is currently withdrawing from this account on a monthly basis, and there is no indication that his withdrawals are subject to a penalty of any kind. Consolidated Findings 28 and 30. Thus, we agree with the review examiner’s conclusion that,although the claimant’s monthly expenses exceed his monthly income, the value of his IRA allows forrecovery of the overpaid benefits without defeating the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized.

We must also consider whether recovery of the overpaid benefits would be against equity and good conscience. The review examiner originally concluded that the claimant did not relinquish a valuable right or change his position for the worse by reason of the overpayment. However, after remand, the review examiner found that the claimant and his wife took out a $30,000.00 car loan in November, 2024, and they have been paying $500.00 per month toward the loan. Consolidated Findings # 12 and 14. The record indicates that this was their only vehicle, a 20-year-old car. See Finding of Fact 12. Further, the review examiner found that, if not for the claimant’s receipt of the overpaid benefits, he and his wife would have waited 6–12 months to buy a new vehicle. Consolidated Finding 13. Entering into such an ongoing contractual obligation such as this, which was made possible by the receipt of unemployment benefits is the type of circumstance that the Board has previously contemplated could alter a claimant’s “position” for the worse. See Board of Review Decision 0013 2291 90 (June 3, 2015). This is in contrast to “a one-time consumption of goods or services, such as travel, entertainment or clothing, [which] does not amount to a change in ‘position’ within a reasonable interpretation of the regulation.” Seeid. 

Because the claimant here took out a large car loan to replace their car, which he might not have done at the time had he not received the erroneously paid benefits, his position was materially changed for the worse by reason of the overpayment, as meant by the regulation. 

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that although recovery of the overpaid benefits would not defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized, it would be against equity and good conscience pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c). 

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant’s request for a waiver of recovery of overpaid benefits is granted. The claimant is not liable to repay $19,152.00 in overpaid benefits.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – February 18, 2026

1. We have supplemented the findings of fact, as necessary, with the unchallenged evidence before the review examiner. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005). 
2. Even assuming arguendo that the claimant in that case had incurred ongoing credit card or other debt in order to pay for the travel, entertainment, or clothing, this would not constitute a material change in position. To hold otherwise would mean that anyone who assumed a debt to pay for goods or services while collecting overpaid benefits would have changed their position for the worse. For the reasons set forth in that decision, the Board declined to construe the waiver language so broadly.

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court.
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

SVL/rh