Hatin v. Philbrook, 114-76

• Decision Date: 17 September 1976
• Docket Number: No. 114-76,114-76
• Citation: 134 Vt. 456,365 A.2d 511
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Joan HATIN and Marjorie Barr v. Paul PHILBROOK, Commissioner of Social Welfare, and Department of Social Welfare.

Page 511

365 A.2d 511

134 Vt. 456

Joan HATIN and Marjorie Barr v. Paul PHILBROOK, Commissioner of Social Welfare, and Department of Social Welfare.

No. 114-76.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Sept. 17, 1976.

Stephen W. Kinbell, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiffs.

M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., and David H. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.

BILLINGS, Justice.

This case involves a determination of the validity of a regulation enacted by Vermont's Department of Social Welfare, in the administration of its General Assistance Program, which attempts to reconcile the demands of its needy citizens with the fiscal resources available to meet such demands. In the proceedings below, plaintiffs instituted a declaratory judgment proceeding pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 807 claiming inter alia, that Regulation 2613.1 of the Welfare Assistance Manual (WAM) impaired plaintiffs' legal rights and rrivileges as guaranteed under Vermont's welfare statutes. 33 V.S.A. §§ 2501 and 3001, et seq. The pertinent part of the regulation in issue provides:

Payment (for permanent housing) may only be authorized for the mortgage or rental period immediately past and shall not be authorized or issued prior to the expiration of that period. Payment may be made only if the applicant is financially and otherwise eligible on the date of application. Eligibility or non-eligibility during the prior mortgage or rental period is not relevant.

For example, if rent paid monthly is due on January 1, payment cannot be authorized until February 1 and the applicant must meet all eligibility criteria on that date.

Payment may be authorized for the current period only if the applicant is without housing on the date of application.

The court below, after a hearing on the merits, determined the regulation to be valid. Plaintiffs appeal, contending that Regulation 2613.1 (WAM) is inconsistent with Vermont's welfare statutes.

The essential facts of this dispute are uncomplicated. Plaintiffs satisfy the eligibility requirements necessary to receive benefits under the General Assistance program, 33 V.S.A. § 3001, et seq. Both plaintiffs rent apartments and, in the past, both have relied heavily upon benefits from General Assistance to meet their rental obligations. Defendant, responding to fiscal considerations, enacted Regulation 2613.1 (WAM) in order to reduce General Assistance expenditures to a level in line with legislative appropriations.

Plaintiffs' complaint claims that defendant, by enacting Regulation 2613.1 (WAM), has denied plaintiffs their statutory right to financial aid for shelter provided in 33 V.S.A. § 3001(4), and has implemented an administrative scheme contrary to the general social welfare policy of Vermont enumerated in 33 V.S.A. § 2501. More specifically, plaintiffs claim that Regulation 2613.1 (WAM), which prohibits payment of General Assistance for rent until the applicant's rental period is overdue, would result in plaintiffs' loss of shelter through eviction, the very result Vermont's welfare statutes are designed to protect against.

Vermont's Administrative Procedure Act, 3 V.S.A. § 801, et seq., is the enabling legislation conferring authority upon the Department of Social Welfare to enact regulations for the purpose of carrying out the broader statutory scheme. Upon enactment, such regulations are presumed to be valid.

(A)ctions of a administrative body (are presumed) to be correct, valid and reasonable, with a clear and convincing showing required to overcome the presumption. (International Association of Firefighters v. Montpelier, 133 Vt. 175, 178, 332 A.2d 795, 797 (1975). See also In re Devoid, 130 Vt. 141, 287 A.2d 573 (1972)).

Mindful of this presumption, we employ a well-established test to determine the actual validity of Regulation 2613.1 (WAM). This test requires that an administrative regulation must be in harmony with the overall statutory scheme, uniform in operation, and equal in effect in order for such regulation to be valid.

(Administrative regulations are) presumed valid and may be found invalid only if it is shown that (they are) unreasonable, inappropriate or plainly inconsistent with the statute. (Royalton College, Inc. v. Clark, 295 F.Supp. 365, 370 (D.Vt.1969). See generally 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law §...