Gaeckler v. The State Social Security Comm. of Mo.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 19992.,19992.
• Citation: 155 S.W.2d 544
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: LOUISE GAECKLER, RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, APPELLANT.

155 S.W.2d 544

LOUISE GAECKLER, RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, APPELLANT.

No. 19992.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

November 3, 1941.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County. — Hon. Sam Wilcox, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Melvin J. Duvall for respondent.

A life insurance policy, having a cash surrender value of more than $500 is not "cash or negotiable security" within meaning of statute. Miller v. State Social Security Comm., 151 S.W. (2d) 457. An adult child is not legally liable for the support of a parent, and a son-in-law is not liable for the support of his in-laws. Buettner v. State Social Security Commission, 144 S.W. (2d) 864.

Roy McKittrick and B. Richards Creech for appellant.

(1) The court erred in holding respondent entitled to old age assistance benefits when the evidence clearly showed that respondent is not in need. (2) The court erred in holding for respondent for the reason that she has sufficient income or other resources to provide her a reasonable sustenance compatible with decency and health. (3) There is substantial evidence to support the award or decision of the State Social Security Commission. Therefore, this court should affirm the award or decision of the Commission. Section 9411, R.S. Mo., 1939; Subsec. (6) of Sec. 9406, R.S. Mo. 1939; Howlett v. State Social Security Comm. of Mo. (Mo.), 149 S.W. (2d) 806; Dunnavant v. State Social Security Comm. of Mo. (Mo. App.), 150 S.W. (2d) 1103; Buettner v. State Social Security Comm. of Mo., 144 S.W. (2d) 864; Marler v. State Social Security Comm. of Mo., 149 S.W. (2d) 919; Smith v. State Social Security Comm. of Mo. (Mo. App.), 153 S.W. (2d) 741.

SHAIN, P.J.

In this case we are called upon to review the judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, reversing the award of the Social Security Commission of Missouri in denying the application of Louise Gaeckler for old age pension.

The record discloses that some twelve years prior to the application for this pension the applicant, in broken health and penniless except as to an insurance policy of a face value of $1,000, came to the home of A.O. and Louise Kellermeyer and was taken in by them and has remained in said home and has been cared for to the best of their ability ever since. Mrs. Louise Kellermeyer is the daughter of the applicant.

The story told by the record in this case presents a pathetic story of privation and misfortunes of a kindly son-in-law and a dutiful daughter trying to keep the wolf from the door and doing their duty as best the could to an aged and indigent parent.

The petitioner, now over seventy-two years of age, had taken out a policy in the Modern Woodmen and named as the beneficiary her daughter Laura and other children. Not having the means to pay the assessments, the same were paid by her son-in-law.

The cash value of the insurance policy is testified to as $570. The award of the commission is shown as follows:

"(1) That the claimant owns or possesses cash or negotiable security in the sum of $500.00 or more; (2) that claimant has income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health and is not found to be in need. Therefore, claimant does not come within the purview of the statute and application for old age assistance is denied." (Italics theirs.)

The judgment of the circuit court is shown as follows:

"Come now the parties hereto, by their respective attorneys and this cause is taken up and submitted to the Court upon the appeal from the decision of the State Social Security Commission and the transcript of the evidence given at the hearing before said commission, and this court being fully advised in the premises finds that the decision of the Commission is arbitrary and unreasonable, and this Court remands the proceedings to the State Social Security Commission for redetermination of the issues by the said State Social Security Commission.

IT IS THEREFORE ordered by the Court that this cause be, and it is hereby remanded to the State Social Security Commission for re-determination of the issues."

From the judgment of the circuit court the State Social Security Commission appeals.

Assignments of error appear as follows:

"I.

"The court erred in holding respondent entitled to old age assistance benefits when the evidence clearly showed that respondent is not in need.

"II.

"The court erred in holding for respondent for the reason that she has sufficient income or other resources to provide her a reasonable sustenance compatible with decency and health.

"III.

"There is substantial evidence to support the award or decision of the State Social Security Commission. Therefore, this court should affirm the award or decision of the Commission."

Citations of authorities as to above are duly shown.

OPINION

The review of this case involves the construction of Section 9411, Revised Statutes, Missouri, 1939, and subsection (2), (3), and (6) of Section 9406, Revised Statutes, Missouri, 1939. Subsection (6) and Section 9411, Amendments of 1937-39, materially change the law as interpreted by the courts of this State prior to the amendments. There are several cases reported since the amendments which construe the provisions of Section 9506 and Section 9411 as amended.

The Supreme Court of Missouri's decision in Howlett v. Social Security Commission, 149 S.W. (2d) 806, well defines the scope of a review of Social Security cases by appellate courts. The question as to whether or not the circuit court has kept within the scope defined in the opinion, supra, is pertinent to the review herein.

As to subsections (2) and (3), this court in the opinion in Miller v. Social Security Commission, 1515 S.W. (2d) 457, held as follows:

"That a life insurance policy, having a cash surrender value of more than $500.00 was not `cash or negotiable security' within meaning of statute making the owner of `cash or negotiable security' in the sum of $500.00 or more ineligible for social security benefits."

And further:

"That a life insurance policy held by applicant for benefits under State Social Security Act was `property' within statute making owner or possessor of property of any kind in excess of $1,500, ineligible for such benefits."

As the appellant's brief confines itself solely to the construction of subsection (6) of Section 9406 and Section 9411, Revised Statutes, Missouri, 1939, we take it for granted that appellant raises no question as to the construction as to subsections (2) and (3), supra.

This court in the review of Dunnavant v. Social Security Commission, 150 S.W. (2d) 103, had the same legal questions before it that are involved in this case. In our construction of subsection (6), supra, as applied to the facts disclosed in the Dunnavant case, we reversed the action of the circuit court in reversing the award of the commission which denied relief to the applicant therein.

The question as to whether or not our conclusions therein reached, based upon the facts shown in the Dunnavant case, apply to the facts as shown in the case at bar, is pertinent to our review herein.

A review of the facts disclosed by the evidence in the case at bar are necessary to a solution. There were only four witnesses who testified at the hearing before the commission, all on behalf of the claimant. The testimony of these witnesses stands undisputed.

The applicant, approximately seventy-two years old, sick and feeble, testified in her own behalf. The testimony of applicant shows that she has not a clear understanding of business matters other than that she is penniless and in frequent need of medical attention, and that outstanding bills for such attention are delinquent.

The following question and answer is characteristic:

"Q. And during that time, has your daughter and son-in-law taken care of you and supported you? A. To their best ability, I expect, Yes, Sir."

The applicant was asked concerning an insurance policy. However, her understanding as to same appears limited. The insurance policy is shown to be a $1000 life policy in the Woodmen's circle. Mrs. Henze, agent and collector of premiums for the association was called as a witness and her testimony is to the effect that applicant's daughter had paid the premiums for the last ten or twelve years. Further, that premiums were approximately $40 per year and that the surrender value is a little over $500.

In the testimony of Mrs. Henze, the following questions and answers appear:

"Q. Do you know of your own knowledge why the daughter started paying the premiums? A. Mrs. Gaeckler was sick and she had no income and somebody had to pay it or it would be dropped.

"Q. Was the policy assigned or not? A. Before that it was made to all the children but after this one daughter had to pay it, of course, the beneficiary was made as her. She was made beneficiary."

Louise Kellermeyer, the daughter with whom applicant lives, was called as a witness and testified as to general conditions in the home and as to the care she and her husband had managed to give applicant.

The following questions and answers in the daughter's testimony are pertinent:

"Q. You say you and your husband have been paying the doctor bills. What bills have you paid? A. Her medicine bill is very expensive. We tried to get a letter from the doctor but he is out of town. She is a little better than she has been. Her drug store bill is very expensive.

"Q. How much is it? A. Sometimes $10.00 a month.

"Q. What about the doctor bill? A. We don't have him any more than we have to have. She really needs more attention than she gets."

And further:

"Q. Are you and your husband able to support your mother any longer? A. No.

"Q. Do you feel willing and able to continue to support her? A. No.

"MR. GRAVES: I object to that.

"MR. CROWE: Yes. I think that is immaterial.

"MR. DUVALL: Q. You refuse, do you, you and your husband, to support her? A...