Brattin v. State Social Sec. Com'n

• Decision Date: 17 May 1946
• Docket Number: 6620
• Citation: 194 S.W.2d 536
• Parties: BRATTIN v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

194 S.W.2d 536

BRATTIN v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

No. 6620

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Springfield

May 17, 1946

J. E Taylor, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Asst. Atty Gen., for appellant.

Charles E. Ginn, of Aurora, for respondent.

OPINION

FULBRIGHT

This is an appeal by the State Social Security Commission from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Lawrence County in which the court found that the decision of the Commission denying applicant old age assistance was arbitrary and unreasonable and ordered and adjudged that the cause be remanded to the Commission for further consideration.

The evidence shows that applicant, respondent herein, was on the Old Age Assistance Roll for a time while living in Barry County. The length of time and dates are not given. During this time she sold her home in Barry County and moved to Lawrence County and shortly thereafter was removed from the Old Age Assistance Roll for the reason that she had in excess of $ 500 in cash. From this order she appealed, but on November 19, 1943, the Commission sustained the order removing the applicant from the roll. On February 29, 1943, applicant filed a new application in Lawrence County for benefits under the State Social Security Act, Mo.R.S.A. § 9396 et seq. and after investigation the application was denied and the claimant filed application for a hearing before the Commission. A hearing was held on the 23rd day of March, 1944, and thereafter, on May 19, 1944, said Commission found that the applicant was not entitled to benefits and sustained the original order rejecting the application. It was stipulated between the parties at the hearing before the Commission that the applicant qualified for assistance as to age and residence.

The record discloses that after claimant filed her last application for assistance a representative from the county office of the Commission interviewed her and requested certain information relative to facts and circumstances regarding her living conditions. She refused to give the representative any information other than the answers given to questions shown on the application for benefits, for the reason that applicant's attorney of record advised her not to answer any questions other than those contained in the official application blank. It further appears that claimant's attorney, in a conversation with the representative of the Commission by telephone, stated that if said representative would reduce her questions to writing and send a list of them to him he would ask Mrs. Brattin (claimant) the questions and tell said representative the answers.

The evidence is confusing but tends to show that claimant had formerly lived in Barry County where she owned a home and which she says she sold for $ 575. She then moved to Lawrence County into the home of Samuel McMahan (no relative of claimant) with whom she and her daughter lived for a time. She bought the home in which they were living from Mr. McMahan and made a down payment of $ 575 and made monthly payments of $ 10 until claimant disposed of it at a later date. In regard to the sale of this property she testified on cross examination as follows:

'Q. When you sold the place which you had purchased from Mr. McMahan how much money did you receive? A. Just received what I put in.

'Q. How much did you put in? A. $ 575.00.

'Q. You put it in when you bought the place and made several payments before you sold it? A. Yes.

'Q. Did you receive approximately $ 600.00 when you sold the place you purchased from Mr. McMahan? A. I turned it over to him. He turned it over to my daughter because he owed her.

'Q. How much did you receive for the place, what was the total price? A. $ 1500.00, I believe it was.

'Q. How much was the mortgage? A. I don't remember.

'Q. Was the mortgage $ 900.00? A. I don't remember.'

Claimant, her daughter and Mr. McMahan now live in this home under an arrangement whereby claimant pays all grocery and utility bills and the daughter washes and irons for Mr. McMahan and takes care of his clothes, all in return for free rent. On the other hand Mr. McMahan does the chores about the place.

Again on cross examination applicant stated:

'Q. Getting back to the sale of property you purchased from Mr. McMahan did I understand you to say in answer to a former question that all the money was turned over to your daughter, the $ 600.00 you got and the $ 900.00? A. He paid her what he owed her for a long time.

'Q. Mr. McMahan paid your daughter $ 900? A. Yes.

'Q. You turned all the $ 600 so the daughter got the whole $ 1500.00? A. Yes, kept my money for me.

'Q. Has she been using that to support the household, buy groceries and pay for heat, utilities and fuel? A. Yes, I have been using my part and she spends hers. She ain't got any money now.'

No documents were offered in evidence and, as a matter of fact, it is not disclosed where the $ 900 came from that the daughter received. The evidence is also very vague as to who has title to the home at the present time.

On cross examination applicant testified, in part as follows, as to who paid the expenses of the household:

'Q. How much does the expenses amount to per month that you pay in the home? A. I don't keep account of it. I just buy what we have to have and don't keep an account.

'Q. Where do you buy your groceries, in one store or different stores? A. Where I do the best. I don't have a certain place.

'Q. Can't you say how much the expenses are per month or week? A. No.

'Q. How long have you been buying groceries there? A. Since I have been there.

'Q. How long is that? A. About four months -- four or five months.

'Q. You were living with your daughter and Mr. McMahan before that? A. Yes.

'Q. How long have you been living with your daughter and Mr. McMahan? A. Ten months.

'Q. Have you been buying all that time or just for four months? A. Four or five months. I can't say exactly. I guess it has been five months.

'Q. You can give us no amount you spend for groceries each month? A. No.

'Q. Have you no idea of the extent of it although you buy all the groceries? A. No.

'Q. How much do you spend for fuel? A. Over $ 50.00 -- about $ 75.00 for fuel.

'Q. For how long? A. This whole winter long. We have a gas stove. I pay that and the water and lights.'

Applicant has her regular doctor but the record is silent as to who pays the bills. There is no evidence to show the applicant's cost of living or that she was in need at the time of the hearing. The evidence is vague and indefinite as to how much money applicant has, however, there is evidence to the effect that she turned over to her daughter $ 575 or $ 600 for safekeeping. At a former hearing it appeared that she gave her daughter this money with the understanding that the daughter was to take care of her in return therefor. There is other evidence that she had spent all this money for living expenses in four or five months, except for approximately $ 100.

The Commission urges that the trial court erred in finding that the award of the State Social Security Commission was arbitrary and unreasonable and in remanding the cause to the Commission for redetermination.

Section 9411, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A., provides for the right of appeal to the Circuit Court of the county in which the applicant resides from a decision of the Commission denying...