Foster v. Department of Social Welfare, 10-76
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-76,10-76 |
| Citation | 135 Vt. 376,376 A.2d 741 |
| Parties | Clifton FOSTER v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
William R. Brooks, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiff.
M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., and Georgiana O. Miranda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.
The Department of Social Welfare, as appellant, challenges an order of the Human Services Board reversing a departmental decision and reinstating, retroactively, the allowance for property taxes included in petitioner's budget for purposes of the Aid to Needy Families with Children Program (ANFC). It also challenges a provision of that order establishing "protective" (i. e., direct) payments to the town involved. It claims that, since claimant has let his property taxes go unpaid, their inclusion in his budget violates its Regulation 2211.3, requiring housing allowances to be budgeted "as paid." Both the Board and the claimant seem to concede the violation of the regulation in question, but view the regulation as contrary to those promulgated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) requiring money payments to be in cash or its equivalent, without restrictions imposed by the agency upon use of the funds by the individual. 45 C.F.R. § 234.11(a). We do not reach a scrutiny of the claimed conflict, which would, of course, require that the state regulation yield to the federal, because participation in the federal program mandates conformity with the Social Security Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 317, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968). In our view, the policy adopted by the department is without foundation in its own regulations, and results from a strained, unwarranted interpretation of its Regulation 2211.3, and of the term "as paid" contained therein.
The factual situation here involved is fairly simple. The claimant, who has a wife and three children, had his ANFC budget reduced by some $23.00 per month, and his total grant by about $19.00, when the department discovered that he had not paid his property taxes for two years. As he was buying a home, these taxes had been included in his shelter costs, along with his mortgage payments. At the time, the grant was calculated upon 80% (later reduced to 73%) of the budget, so that, to make his cash flow requirements cover his living expenses the claimant resorted to (a) borrowing from relatives, and (b) letting his tax payments go into arrears. It is not suggested to us, nor can we perceive, how any more prudent course was open to him. The department based its grant reduction upon its reading of its own Regulation 2211.3, relating to budgeting of housing allowances "as paid." It concedes that this practice, if continued as a policy, would result in a continuing diminution of grant until virtually no shelter allowance remained, as each successive reduction for nonpayment of shelter costs caused a greater inability to pay those costs when they accrued. It reads that regulation to require either the actual payment of the budgeted item or its exclusion from the budget, despite the prohibition of restrictions upon use of money payments contained in the HEW regulation above referred to.
Regulation 2211.3 is quite lengthy, and not all of it has application to the issue presented. In its pertinent portion, it reads as follows:
. . . Housing allowances shall be budgeted "as paid" not to exceed the following maximums:
MAXIMUM MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
-------------------------
HOUSING TYPE OUTSIDE CHITTENDEN
------------------------- ------------------------- -----------
CHITTENDEN COUNTY COUNTY ONLY
------------------------- -----------
Home ownership
Unfurnished rental
(no heat or
utilities)
Heated rental
Rental with (Dollar amounts omitted)
utilities
Heated rental
(with utilities)
Furnished rental
(with or without
heat and/or utilities)
Rental housing shall qualify as a furnished rental when essential items of furniture for eating and sleeping are provided. A rented mobile home shall qualify as a furnished or unfurnished rental by the same criteria.
Recurring shelter expense for maintaining a home is included (as paid) up to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitingham School Bd., 12-81
...defendants runs counter to the plain meaning of the statute, and must therefore be rejected. See, e.g., Foster v. Department of Social Welfare, 135 Vt. 376, 378, 376 A.2d 741, 743 (1977). Attorney's fees are expressly authorized for plaintiffs and the State, but the statute does not mention......
-
Hydro Energies Corp., In re
...construction of administrative rules and regulations is to give language its plain, ordinary meaning. Foster v. Department of Social Welfare, 135 Vt. 376, 378, 376 A.2d 741, 743 (1977). "Levelized rate" is defined as "the result of the use of present worth arithmetic to convert a series of ......