Barnes v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 22 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 46960-1,46960-1
• Citation: 96 Wn.2d 316,635 P.2d 135
• Parties: Gilbert BARNES, Petitioner, v. Gerald THOMAS, as Acting Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, State of Washington, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 316

96 Wn.2d 316

635 P.2d 135

Gilbert BARNES, Petitioner, v.Gerald THOMAS, as Acting Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, State of Washington, Respondent.

No. 46960-1.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Oct. 22, 1981.

Evergreen Legal Services, Elizabeth Schott, Seattle, for petitioner.

Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Frederick Staatz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondent.

HICKS, Justice.

The trial court refused to grant petitioner the writ of prohibition he sought to prevent DSHS from holding a hearing in regard to repaying the excess public assistance he had received by not informing DSHS of social security benefits he was receiving.The Court of Appeals affirmed in a unanimous opinion, 25 Wash.App. 515, 610 P.2d 922.This court granted a petition for review.

For the third time the Department of Social and Health Services(DSHS) discovered that petitioner and his wife received an overpayment of public assistance or an overissue of food stamps.On the two prior occasions petitioner was notified by letters to which he did not respond.He responded to the third letter by requesting a hearing to which he is entitled under RCW 74.08.070.At the hearing he moved to dismiss on the ground that DSHS lacked jurisdiction.When the motion was denied, petitioner applied to the superior court for a writ of prohibition, which was also denied.

Petitioner appealed to Division One of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's denial of the writ, holding that even though petitioner was not at the time on the rolls he was still a "recipient" of public assistance, thus giving DSHS jurisdiction.Further, the court held that petitioner had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act from the DSHS hearing, thus the extraordinary writ was properly denied by the trial court.

We affirm.

First, we state the long established law that a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only where the tribunal is clearly and inarguably acting in a matter where there is an inherent, entire lack of jurisdiction:

the writ of prohibition will only issue where there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise.State ex rel. New York Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Wash.2d 834, 199 P.2d 581(1948);Rem.Rev.Stat., § 1028 ... But where the court is attempting to proceed entirely without jurisdiction, we have held that the remedy by appeal is inadequate and prohibition will lie.State ex rel. Western Canadian Greyhound Lines, (Ltd.) v. Superior Court, 26 Wash.2d 740, 175 P.2d 640(1946).

State ex rel. Munro v. Superior Court, 35 Wash.2d 217, 221212 P.2d 493(1949).See alsoAlaska Airlines, Inc. v. Molitor, 43 Wash.2d 657, 263 P.2d 276(1953);RCW 7.16.300.

Total and inarguable absence of jurisdiction cannot be adequately remedied by appeal.State ex rel. Maurer v. Superior Court, 122 Wash. 555, 211 P. 764(1922);State ex rel. Waterman v. Superior Court, 127 Wash. 37, 220 P. 5(1923).In the instant case, however, there is no clear absence of jurisdiction, and the appeal remedy is adequate to protect petitioner's interest.Petitioner is challenging DSHS jurisdiction over him, not over the subject matter of debts due on overpayment of public assistance.By appearing and requesting a hearing he may have waived that objection.But even had he not waived it, a writ of prohibition should not issue.As we said in State ex rel. Martin v. Superior Court, 101 Wash. 81, 92, 172 P. 257(1918):

Where, however, the question is whether the court, acting within the scope of its admitted jurisdiction, has acquired jurisdiction over the parties or the particular subject-matter, the writ will not issue.

Under the APA, petitioner can appeal the jurisdictional issue following the hearing.Thus, the writ was correctly denied.

Our decisions in State v. Mack, 89 Wash.2d 788, 576 P.2d 44(1978)andState ex rel. Moore v. Houser, 91 Wash.2d 269, 588 P.2d 219(1978), do not lead us to a further expansion of the availability of the remedy anytime there is questionable jurisdiction and an appeal would be inconvenient.Both Houser and Mack involved a clear absence of jurisdiction, based on the speedy trial rule requiring trial within 60 days or dismissal.This case does not involve a clear absence of jurisdiction.Issuance of the writ is a matter of discretion, and we find no abuse in the court's refusal to grant the remedy under these facts.

There is another equally valid reason why the court acted properly in refusing to issue a writ of prohibition.DSHS had the necessary authority to proceed as it did in this case.

Under RCW 74.08.070, as it was written at the time petitioner requested a hearing, a recipient feeling aggrieved by the decision of DSHS or its agent had the right to a fair administrative hearing.A "recipient" is defined in RCW 74.04.005(9) as

(a)ny person receiving assistance or currently approved to receive assistance at any future date ...

Petitioner argues that because he was not receiving assistance when informed of the overpayment, he was not a "recipient", and, therefore, DSHS cannot give him the hearing he requested.Further, petitioner argues, we should read the hearing statute, framed in terms of "recipient" defined as above, as not allowing the agency the authority to declare a debt owing from petitioner, or anyone who is no longer on the rolls, without going into court to establish it.

Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive.RCW 74.04.300 contains a clear and unqualified grant of authority to the agency to declare an overpayment to be "a debt due the state" and further provides, without directing the choice, that these debts

may be recovered by the state by deduction from the subsequent assistance payments ... or may be recovered by a civil action instituted...