Mallatt v. Luihn

• Decision Date: 07 March 1956
• Citation: 206 Or. 678,294 P.2d 871
• Parties: Alma D. MALLATT, Respondent, v. J. H. LUIHN, Dr. H. F. Haney, Mrs. Thomas Honeyman, H. M. Lake, Mrs. Lee Patterson, Bardi G. Skulason, Ira D. Staggs, comprising the State Public Welfare Commission, and Loa Howard, Appellants.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 871

294 P.2d 871

206 Or. 678

Alma D. MALLATT, Respondent, v. J. H. LUIHN, Dr. H. F. Haney, Mrs. Thomas Honeyman, H. M Lake, Mrs. Lee Patterson, Bardi G. Skulason, Ira D. Staggs, comprising the State Public Welfare Commission, and Loa Howard, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 26, 1955.

Decided March 7, 1956.

John W. Brugman, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., and Bardi G. Skulason, Portland, in pro. per.

Thomas R. Mahoney, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

LUSK, Justice.

The plaintiff brought this suit under the declaratory judgment statute to have determined questions of the construction and validity of Oregon Laws 1949, ch. 590, and Oregon Laws 1953, ch. 361 (hereinafter referred to, respectively, as the 1949 Act and the 1953 Act), imposing liability to 'needy persons' as defined in ORS 413.010 (5) upon certain relatives of such needy persons and to obtain a declaration of rights under such legislation. The defendants are the members of the State Public Welfare Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) and the administrator of the Commission, which is charged with supervision of the administration of these laws by the county public welfare commissions. The court below entered a decree declaring both the 1949 and 1953 acts unconstitutional and void, and the defendants have appealed.

It appears from the pleadings that plaintiff is the daughter of Lettie Dellorah Courter and Albert Dorsey Courter, who have been receiving old age assistance from the state of Oregon pursuant to the provisions of Oregon Laws 1951, ch. 309, now ORS 413.010 et seq., since January 1, 1952, up to the time of filing the complaint, which was October 14, 1953. There are seven other children, brothers and sisters of the plaintiff, residing in Oregon, all of whom, according to the complaint, have incomes equal to or exceeding that of the plaintiff.

On September 9, 1953, the Commission notified the plaintiff by registered mail that it had paid to her parents during the calendar year 1952 the sum of $1,242, under the provisions of the 1949 Act, and demanded payment by plaintiff of $180, and further notified the plaintiff that under the provisions of the 1953 Act she would be required to pay the sum of $70 per month, on account of money paid to her parents by the Commission, if her income during 1953 equalled her income for the year 1952.

Upon various grounds the plaintiff contends by her complaint that the two statutes in question, which, taken together, are known as the 'Relatives' Support Act,' are unconstitutional. It will serve the purpose of clarity first to summarize the pertinent provisions of the statutes involved.

By ORS 413.010(5) a needy person is defined as 'a person who has attained the age of 65 years and who does not have income and resources sufficient to provide himself with food, clothing, shelter and such other essential needs as are necessary to afford a reasonable sustenance necessary to maintain life and compatible with decency and health.' Under this section and ORS 413.020, 413.040(2), a needy person, as thus defined, who meets certain residence requirements, is entitled to old age assistance in an amount which added to income is sufficient to equal at least $50 per month.

The laws whose meaning and validity are drawn in question by this proceeding were passed for the purpose of imposing liability on certain responsible relatives of needy persons for the amounts of old age assistance furnished them and to prescribe procedures for the enforcement of such liability.

The existing law is codified as ORS 411.410-411.470.

The statutes now in question are as follows:

The 1949 Act

Each county public welfare commission, upon receipt of an application for public assistance, is required to investigate the facts relating to the income and financial condition of the applicant's living husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter, or any or all of them, § 1. Statements under oath from the applicant and relatives may be required. Id. A report containing the result of such investigation must be made to the Commission. Id. The Commission, upon receipt of such report, may make such further investigation as it deems necessary and shall make a determination of the liability of each living relative for contribution to the applicant's support in accordance with 'the relatives' contribution scale.' § 2. 'In determining the ability to contribute, the financial circumstances of such relatives shall be given due consideration and in unusual cases a contribution of less than the amount fixed in the relatives' contribution scale may be made as the commission may deem justifiable.' Id. Relatives are made liable to each needy person for monthly amounts determined in accordance with the 'relatives' contribution scale', which is set forth, § 3. The amounts are fixed in an ascending scale with reference to the net monthly income of responsible relatives as determined by their state income tax returns, but such amounts are diminished progressively in accordance with the number of persons dependent upon the income. Id. To illustrate, a relative having a net monthly income in the bracket $395 to $474, upon which one person is dependent, is made liable to pay $70 per month. If there are two dependents the amount of his liability is $50; if three, $40; if four, $35; if five, $25; if six, $20; if seven, $10. Id. It is provided that by accepting public assistance the recipient thereof shall be deemed to consent to the recovery of an amount equal thereto from any responsible living relative or relatives by the Commission, § 4, and the needy person is given a cause of action against the relative for the monthly contributions established by the relatives' contribution scale and may recover a judgment for all accumulated contributions for which the defendant is liable under the act. § 5. The Commission is subrogated to the right of the needy person to prosecute such an action, § 6, and is authorized either in its own name or in the name of the needy person to maintain legal proceedings for the amount of the relatives' contribution established by the act. § 7.

The 1953 Act

The 1953 Act retains the essential features of the 1949 Act, but provides a scale of monthly payments required to be made by relatives based on their gross annual income--defined as 'gross income plus dependency credits and federal income tax deductions of the relative, as determined by the state income tax return filed during the current year', § 3--and incorporates an alternative method of enforcing the liability of relatives by authorizing the Commission to issue warrants to county sheriffs to levy upon the property of delinquent relatives. As a prerequisite to the exercise of this power the Commission is required, after having made a determination of liability pursuant to the 1949 Act, to hold a hearing. Notice must be given to the relative affected that 'a contribution pursuant to the scale provided in section 3 of this Act is due and payable to the Commission for aid given to the needy person and that the relative may appear for a hearing on objections to his financial responsibility' at a time and place specified, § 4. If the evidence at the hearing, or, in case of the relative's failure to appear at the hearing, the evidence developed at the previous investigation does not disclose sufficient reason why the relative should not be held responsible, the Commission must notify the relative of its final decision within ten days after making it, § 6. Within 30 days after the mailing of such notice the relative may appeal to the circuit court, the appeal to proceed as a suit in equity in which the Commission is the defendant, § 7. Either party may appeal from the decision of the circuit court to the Supreme Court. Id. We quote §§ 8 and 9 in full:

'Section 8. If the relative fails to appeal a final decision of the commission within the time specified in section 7 of this Act or if the court, on appeal, decides in favor of the commission, the State Public Welfare Commission may issue a warrant under its hand and directed to the sheriff of any county of the state commanding him to levy upon and sell the real and personal property of the relative found within his county, for the payment of the amount of the contribution and the cost of executing the warrant, and to return such warrant to the commission and pay to it the money collected by virtue thereof by a time to be therein specified, not less than 60 days from the date of the warrant. The sheriff shall, not later than five days after the receipt of the warrant, file with the clerk of his county a copy thereof. Thereupon, the clerk shall enter in the judgment docket, in the column for judgment debtors, the name of the relative mentioned in the warrant, and in appropriate columns the amount of the contribution due or portion thereof for which the warrant is issued and the date when such copy is filed.

'Section 9. (1) The amount of a warrant docketed under section 8 of this Act shall become a lien upon the title to and interest in real property or personal property of the relative against whom it is issued in the same manner as a judgment duly docketed in the office of the county clerk. The sheriff shall then proceed upon the warrant in all respects, with like effect and in the same manner provided by law in respect to executions issued against property upon judgment of a court of record, and shall be entitled to the same fees for his services in executing the warrant, to be added to and collected as a part of the warrant liability.

'(2) If a warrant is returned not satisfied in full, the commission shall have the same remedies to enforce the claim for contributions against the relative as if the people of the state had recovered judgment against the...