Dunnavant v. State Social Security Com'n of Missouri

• Citation: 150 S.W.2d 1103,235 Mo.App. 1107
• Parties: MINNIE DUNNAVANT, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
• Decision Date: 05 May 1941
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

150 S.W.2d 1103

235 Mo.App. 1107

MINNIE DUNNAVANT, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 5, 1941

Error to Cooper Circuit Court.--Hon. Sam C. Blair, Judge.

REVERSED.

Judgment reversed.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, and B. Richards Creech Assistant Attorney-General, for plaintiff in error.

(1) The judgment of the trial is a final judgment. Lamker v Schiller et al., 136 S.W.2d 371, 372; 27 Words and Phrases, page 538; Page 38, Plaintiff in Error's Abstract of Record and Brief in Writ of Error. (2) The issues presented in this cause are not abstract propositions and present a real controversy. Therefore, they are not moot. Massengill v. City of Clovis et al., 268 P. 786; Locke v. Old Colony Trust Co. et al., 193 N.E. 892 894; Ward v. Ward et al., 3 P. 415, 89 Colo. 396. (3) The mental condition of defendant in error may be only temporary. Therefore, the issues presented in this cause should not be considered moot. Gee et al. v. Bess, 138 S.W.2d 242; Powell v. Powell, 22 N.E.2d 896; Graff v. City of Tacoma, 112 P. 250, 251; 4 C. J. S., page 1969.

W. G. Pendleton and John J. Stegner for defendant in error.

Sections 12967b-11, and 12967b-16, Laws 1939, Mo. Stat. Ann.; Johns v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 161; Clay v. State Social Security Comm. , 143 S.W.2d 165; Clay v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 167; Redmon v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 168; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., (not yet officially reported); Ben F. Howlett, respondent, v. State Social Sec. Comm. (Springfield Court) (not yet officially reported). This case is certified to the Supreme Court as being in conflict with the case of Buettner v. State Social Security Commission (Mo. App.), 144 S.W.2d 863.

OPINION

SHAIN, P. J.

--This case is brought to this court by writ of error to the Circuit Court of Cooper County, Missouri. The facts involved are that the defendant in error made application for old age assistance under the provisions of the Social Security Act of Missouri. The Social Security Commission fixed date for hearing in the Social Security office in Boonville, Cooper County, Missouri, on March 18, 1940. Due notice was given and hearing had before Hon. Elmore G. Crowe, referee, on aforesaid date and at aforesaid place.

The award of the Commission is in words and figures as follows:

"The above claimant for benefits under the Social Security Law having submitted her claim and had a hearing on the 8th day of March, 1940, and after hearing the parties at issue, their representatives, witnesses and evidence, the State Social Security Commission finds and awards:

"(1) That the claimant owns or possesses cash or negotiable security in the sum of $ 500 or more; (2) that the claimant has income, resources, support and maintenance to prove a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health and is not found to be in need. Therefore, a claimant does not come within the purview of the statute and application for old age assistance is denied.

"Given at the City of Jefferson, State of Missouri, on this 3rd day of April, 1940.

"STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

"By GEO. I. HAWORTH,

"Administrator.

"(Seal)"

The applicant, defendant in error herein, duly appealed from the aforesaid award to the Circuit Court of Cooper County, Missouri. The matter was heard in the Circuit Court of Cooper County, Missouri, at the June, 1940, Term of said court.

The Commission, plaintiff in error herein, at said hearing asked declarations of law as follows:

"(1)

"The Court declares the law to be that if the court finds from the evidence that this applicant owns and possesses life insurance policies, having a cash surrender valuation of over $ 500 which may be surrendered to the insurance companies by applicant for an amount of money exceeding $ 500, then this applicant is not eligible for the benefits under section 11, subdivision 2, page 739, Laws of 1939, and the decision of the State Social Security Commission should be affirmed.

"(2)

"That if the applicant, from all the facts, is not found in need, that is, she is receiving the necessaries of life from any source whatsoever, then assistance shall be denied and the decision of the State Social Security Commission shall be affirmed.

"ROY McKITTRICK,

"Attorney-General.

"AUBREY R. HAMMETT, JR.

"Assistant Attorney-General,

"Counsel for Defendant."

The entry of judgment in the circuit court is as follows:

"BE IT REMEMBERED, That heretofore, to-wit: On the 18th day of July, 1940, same being the Seventh Day of the June, 1940, Term, of the Circuit Court of Cooper County, Missouri, the following among other proceedings, were had and entered of record, to-wit:

"Minnie Dunnavant, Claimant, 15737

v.

"State Social Security Commission, Defendant.

"The appeal of the plaintiff from the decision of the defendant denying her claim for pension, or Old Age Assistance, having been heretofore at this term submitted to the Court for trial and by the Court taken under advisement for decision, and the defendant having asked certain declarations of law, the Court now given defendant's declaration No. 1, and refuses to give its declaration No. 2.

"The Court finds from the evidence in the record of the hearing had before the defendant, that there is no evidence that the plaintiff owns or possesses life insurance policies having a cash surrender value of five hundred dollars; and further finds from said record that the plaintiff receives no necessaries of life or support from any source whatever other than from her daughter; that such support does not render the plaintiff ineligible for the benefits claimed by her under the law applicable to her claim.

"It is by the Court, therefore, adjudged that the decision of the defendant denying the plaintiff's claim for assistance be and the same is hereby reversed, and it is by the Court ordered that the defendant, State Social Security Commission, place the plaintiff on its roll as entitled to assistance in a measure to be fixed by the Commission without regard to any assistance or support she is receiving from her daughter.

"It is by the Court further ordered that the clerk of this court mail a certified copy of this judgment to the State Social Security Commission."

It is to the above judgment that writ of error is directed.

The modern tendency of government operations by bureaus, with its undeveloped and changing aspects, leads uncertainty to recent judicial opinions touching procedure under the act. Modern social security laws are such a departure from the old horse and buggy "poor farm" days that old fashioned folk have trouble to keep up with the pace set and our lawmakers indulge in frequent amendments, both as to substantive and adjective law, in an attempt to adjust the law to meet the requirements of the new system wherein a dual administration involving national and state legislative agencies must be coordinated.

In the past few years there has been two drastic changes in the law resulting in nullifying judicial conclusions almost as soon as officially published. What is now Section 9506, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, was amended in 1939, so as to make the following provision:

". . . Benefits shall not be payable to any person who:

. . . .

"(6) has earning capacity, income, or resources, whether such income or resources is received from some other person or persons, gifts or otherwise, sufficient to meet his needs for a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health."

Another amendment made in 1939 materially changes procedure upon review on appeal. Section 9411, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, contains language as follows:

"Such appeal shall be tried in the circuit court upon the record of the proceedings had before and certified by the State Commission, which shall be in such case certified and included in the return of the State Commission to the court. Upon the record so certified by the State Commission, the circuit court shall determine whether or not a fair hearing has been granted the individual. If the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by the State Commission, or that its decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, the court shall, in such event, remand the proceedings for redetermination of the issues by the State Commission." (Italics ours.)

Since the judgment of the circuit court, now before us for review, was made, several appellate court opinions have been handed down wherein the amendment of 1937 and 1939 are discussed.

On the 18th day of November, 1940, this court handed down an opinion in Buettner v. State Social Security Commission, 144 S.W.2d 864.

In the above case the applicant was shown to have been well cared for in the home of her daughter and son-in-law, for a period of sixteen years prior to and at the time of the hearing. The commission heard evidence as to financial condition of applicant's daughter and son-in-law and the daughter testified at the hearing that her husband was not willing to continue the support of the applicant.

In the Buettner case the commission refused assistance and on appeal to the circuit court the action of the commission was reversed and upon an appeal to this court the judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and in the opinion by this court the amendment of 1939 was considered and commented upon. In our comments, the evidence as to financial ability and inclination of the daughter and son-in-law received comment. However, this court reversed the action of the circuit court...