Ambrose v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare

• Decision Date: 15 December 1958
• Docket Number: No. 22834,22834
• Citation: 319 S.W.2d 271
• Parties: Mary J. AMBROSE, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 271

319 S.W.2d 271

Mary J. AMBROSE, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondent.

No. 22834.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 15, 1958.

Claude T. Wood, Richland, for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., James B. Slusher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HUNTER, Judge.

This is an appeal by Mary J. Ambrose, claimant-appellant, from an adverse decision on her application for aid to dependent children benefits. She has three children ranging from 8 to 15 years of age. She applied for aid to dependent children benefits on December 20, 1955. Her application was rejected on January 3, 1956, on the stated basis that she had made a transfer of property without receiving fair and valuable consideration. From that decision she appealed to the Director of the State Department of Public Health and Welfare, who on March 29, 1956, after a hearing, in substance held that public assistance benefits could not be paid to any claimant who had made an assignment or transfer of property without receiving a fair and valuable consideration and that fair and valuable consideration should not include loans or other advancements made by a relative to claimant. On appeal from that decision to the circuit court, that court on December 9, 1957, reviewed the cause as provided by statute, (Sec. 208.100 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) and entered judgment affirming the decision and order of respondent's director.

There is no factual dispute involved. On June 7, 1955, appellant conveyed 160 acres of farm land to her sister, the consideration being that from 1950 to 1952 her sister had loaned her money to live on, to pay necessary doctor bills and other stated items. The farm in question is of a value of about $3,000.

Respondent's director, after accepting as true that claimant's sister had bona fide loaned money to claimant as stated, made his mentioned finding.

In 1955 the applicable portion of the statute on the subject, Section 208.010 provided: * * * 'Benefits shall not be payable to any claimant who: (1) Has made, or whose spouse with whom he is living has made, an assignment, conveyance or transfer of real or personal property or any interest therein of any value within five (5) years preceding the date of the investigation without receiving fair and valuable consideration for said property * * *. 'Fair and valuable consideration' as used herein means money or real or personal property received at the time of the transaction approximately equal to the market value of the property assigned, conveyed or transferred, and shall not for the purpose of this act be construed to include support, services, loans or other advancements made or to be made by a relative to a claimant.' Laws, 1955, page 688, sec. 1. Italics ours.

On June 14, 1957, that section of the statute was amended to read as follows: * * * 'Benefits shall not be payable to any claimant who: (1) Has made, or whose spouse with whom he is living has made, an assignment, conveyance or transfer of real or personal property or any interest therein of any value within five (5) years preceding the date of the investigation without receiving fair and valuable consideration for said property * * * 'Fair and valuable consideration' as used herein means money or real or personal property received at the time of the transaction approximately equal to the market value of the property assigned, conveyed or transferred, and shall not for the purpose of this act be construed to include support, services, or other advancements made or to be made by a relative to a claimant. A payment of loan to a relative may be recognized and eligibility not affected if the claimant can establish to the satisfaction of the Division of Welfare that the loan was bona fide and the proceeds of the loan was used by the claimant for his or his dependents' support or benefit.' Laws, 1957, page 694, sec. 1. Italics ours. The italicized portion of the 1957 enactment is the amendment in question on this appeal.

The 1957 amendment was in effect at the time of the hearing in the circuit court but was not in effect at the time of the hearing before the State Department of Public Health and Welfare.

Both appellant and respondent agree the sole question to be decided on this appeal is whether or not the mentioned 1957 amendment to Section 208.010 is substantive law in which event it is to give effect only prospectively, or is procedural and thus is to be retroactively applied. Cf. Sullivan v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 295 S.W.2d 190; Anson v. Tietze, 354 Mo. 552, 190 S.W.2d 193, 198; State ex rel. Midwest Pipe & Supply Co. v. Haid, 330 Mo. 1093, 52 S.W.2d 183.

The scope of review in this kind of case is not unlimited, and is established and defined by statute. The review in the circuit court is 'upon the record of the proceedings had before and certified by the director'. Sec. 208.100, subd. 4. Appeals from the circuit court are likewise upon the record in the same manner as appeals from the director to the circuit court. Sec. 208.110. Remand to the director is authorized if the court decides 'that a fair hearing and determination of applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted * * * or that his decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.' Sec. 208.100, subd. 5; Ellis v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, 365 Mo. 614, 285 S.W.2d 634.

The director and circuit court denied appellant's right to state aid for the sole and stated reason that the 1957 amendment was substantive in nature rather than procedural, and that therefore the law as it existed prior to that amendment controlled and...