Bollinger v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare
| Decision Date | 20 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 28564,28564 |
| Citation | 254 S.W.2d 257 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BOLLINGER et al. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE. |
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
No brief for respondents.
The respondents, Joseph E. Bollinger and Sarah C. Bollinger, are applicants for old age assistance. Their applications were rejected by the county director on September 10, 1951, and thereafter, at their request, a hearing was conducted in Fredericktown, Missouri, by Hon. S. V. Medling, a referee for the State Department of Public Health and Welfare (appellant). The evidence presented at that hearing was transcribed and was thereafter reviewed by the director of said department and on November 14, 1951, he rendered a decision in which he found that applicants were ineligible to receive public assistance benefits because they owned property having a value in excess of $3,750.
The respondents duly appealed from that decision to the Circuit Court of Madison County. The record was reviewed by that court and on March 6, 1952, a judgment was entered wherein the court found 'that there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the denial of benefits to the applicants by the said State Department of Public Health and Welfare, and that therefore, the decision of said State Department of Public Health and Welfare was arbitrary and unreasonable,' and the decision of said department was 'reversed and the cause remanded to said State Department of Public Health and Welfare for further proceedings not inconsistent with this judgment.' From said judgment the appellant has duly perfected its appeal to this court.
The applicants are husband and wife and reside on a farm of approximately 80 acres located on Highway No. 70 about five miles west of Fredericktown. They own this farm and it is unencumbered. It is conceded by the Bollingers that they own personal property of the value of $275. The only disputed issue at the hearing was as to the value of the farm.
The applicants presented seven witnesses, including themselves, who testified concerning the value of the farm. The Bollingers were of the opinion that it had a value of from $2,000 to $2,500. Mr. Pinkley, a neighbor residing on an adjoining farm, and Mr. Griffith, another neighboring farmer, each estimated the value to be $2,500. Walter Clark, who lived in nearby Oak Grove was of the opinion that it had a market value of $2,800. A real estate agent testifying for applicants was of the opinion that its market value was $3,000, and a Fredericktown banker thought the farm would sell for $3,300.
Appellant presented Mr. Robley Martin of Ironton as its only witness on this issue. It appeared that he had been in the real estate business for 32 years and had been making appraisals during the last 10 years of that time. He testified that he was familiar with the property and was of the opinion that its reasonable market value was $4,000. Upon cross examination by the attorney for the applicants it was brought out that Mr. Martin was willing to buy the farm on that day for $4,000.
As heretofore indicated the sole issue for the determination of the director of the State Department of Public Health and Welfare was whether the applicants owned property which, in the aggregate, exceeded in value the sum of $3,750. If so, they were ineligible to receive the assistance they sought. Section 208.011 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
The statute regulating the procedure upon appeal to the circuit court in cases of this nature provides that the circuit court shall determine whether or not the applicant was granted a fair hearing and whether the decision of the director was arbitrary and unreasonable. Section 208.100 subd. 5 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
It appears to be well settled that an applicant for old...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrard v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...274 S.W.2d 615, 616(2); McCoy v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 788, 790; Bollinger v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 257, 259(4). We pass to claimant's second point, i. e., that the Director's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable......
-
Ellis v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 7310
...supported by substantial evidence, we may consider only the competent evidence favorable thereto, [Bollinger v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 257, 259(3); Linton v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 841, 843(4)], and we may n......
-
Norman v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...only the competent evidence favorable to the Director's findings and order may be considered by us [Bollinger v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 257, 259(3); Linton v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 841, 843(4); Hooks v. S......
-
Carlisle v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...286 S.W.2d 563; Choate v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 296 S.W.2d 189; Bollinger v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 257, 259[1, 2]. Scope of review on appeal in old age assistance cases is set forth in Sec. 208.100 subd. 5, as fo......