Miller v. Munger
| Decision Date | 05 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6747,6747 |
| Parties | George E. MILLER, Nevada State Welfare Administrator, and the Nevada State Welfare Board, Appellants, v. Sarah MUNGER, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Robert List, Atty. Gen., and Margie Ann Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for appellants.
B. Mahlon Brown, III, Clark County Legal Services Program, Las Vegas, for respondent.
This case involves the application of Sarah Munger for aid to her six dependent children pursuant to the provisions of NRS 425.010--425.250.
Sarah Munger at one time was married to Marion Munger. They had six children. Marital difficulties arose, a divorce was procured on June 12, 1969 and Sarah was given custody of the children. After making only a few support payments totaling $724.00 Marion decamped. Prior to the divorce and thereafter Sarah's sister, Lupe Morgan, had given great financial assistance to Sarah and her children.
Sarah's first application for ADC benefits was made on May 23, 1969 and denied June 7, 1969 because the assessed value ($8,782) of her home was in excess of the agency limits.
On November 20, 1969 Sarah transferred her equity in the house to her sister, Lupe Morgan, in satisfaction of the debts accumulated before and after the divorce. An allegation was made that the mortgage company had been threatening foreclosure.
Sarah made a second application on April 9, 1970. This application was denied on the basis that Sarah's '(h)ome (was) sold to settle debts which were not legally enforceable.'
A third application was made on May 19, 1970 and denied June 3, 1970 on the ground that '(p)roperty (was) transferred without consideration commensurate with value of property.'
As to the second denial a notice of appeal was lodged on April 30, 1970 with the Welfare Division and a request was made for a statutory fair hearing. The hearing was had on July 7, 1970 before hearing officer Vincent Fallon. Sarah was represented by her present counsel. At the hearing Sarah presented evidence of the market value of the house (between $29,000 and $30,000 less an estimated $1,000 cost to make the property salable). Next, evidence as to the financial assistance from the Morgans was presented. Several payments were made by check, but in the main no receipts were received for the various cash advances made by the Morgans. The Morgans signed a verified statement listing $6,585.89 of advances to Sarah and the same was admitted into evidence.
The state then presented its case. No evidence was presented to rebut or impeach Lupe Morgan's notarized statement as to the total money advanced to Sarah. No evidence was presented to rebut why Sarah sold her house. Mrs. Miller, the case worker, stated that the fair market value of the house was close to $30,000 encumbered with an $18,000 mortgage. The assessed value of the house was $8,782 which exceeded the agency standard of $6,650 (since increased to $7,500). The bulk of the state's case dealt with arguments as to what constitutes a legally enforceable debt within the welfare context.
A petition for review was filed on August 17, 1970 in district court seeking judicial review of the administrative action. The hearing was had based on the administrative record before Judge Compton. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were incorporated in his decision which reversed the Welfare Divisions's determination. The court basically found that Sarah had established her case for ADC. The court found specifically:
'4. That at the hearing, Petitioner proved that she transferred her equity in the family home to her sister in full satisfaction of debts due the sister for support of the Petitioner and her minor children.
'5. That at the hearing, Petitioner proved a debt due to her sister of $6,500 and an equity in the house of $6,000.
'6. That at the hearing, Petitioner proved that it was necessary to transfer her equity in the house to her sister to save the home from foreclosure, and further, to maintain a home for her minor children.
'7. That the conclusion reached by Respondents was in no way supported by the record and was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of Petitioner's rights of due process and fundamental fairness; and further, that the Respondents offered no evidence contrary to that of Petitioner.
'8. That Petitioner transferred her equity in the real property for a legally enforceable debt in accordance with Section 204.32 of the Welfare Manual.
From this adverse ruling the Welfare Division has prosecuted their appeal asserting that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own judgment for that of the Welfare Board.
The right for judicial review of an adverse administrative decision is afforded an applicant for ADC statutorily by NRS 425.120(3). This right of review is limited in scope, viz:
'The district court shall either affirm the decision of the welfare division, or, if it concludes that the findings of the welfare division are not supported by evidence or that the welfare division's decision is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to law, reverse the decision and remand the case to the welfare division for further proceedings in conformity with the decision of the court.'
This has been held to mean that, Miller v. West, 88 Nev. 105, 493 P.2d 1332 (1972).
Focusing on the issue presented to the administrative review board, we find that Nevada State Welfare Division Manual Chapter on Resource Determination--ADC (8/71) § 204.32 () provides in effect that a period of ineligibility for ADC benefits may be predicated on the sale of real estate for which commensurate value was not received, or stated differently, but achieving the same result, property was transferred to settle an unenforceable debt. 1
As to Sarah's debt to the Morgans, a verified statement was used to prove the amount. Welfare ignored all of these, even those evidenced by checks, in the computation of the ineligibility period. In considering the requirements of Sec. 204.32(4) that the debt be a 'matter of record and verified,' we must keep in mind the legislative admonishment that the provisions of the ADC chapter shall be liberally construed to provide assistance for dependent children and to keep these children in their own homes whenever possible. NRS 425.020(1) and (2). A strict definition of 'matter of record' appears in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed.Rev.1968): 'Any judicial matter or proceeding entered on the records of a court, and to be proved by the production of such record.' 2 Here we are concerned with a welfare statute regulating applications by a class of persons not generally possessed with sufficient sophistication to conduct their business affairs on the same level as an attorney or businessman. To require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meinhold v. Clark County School Dist. Bd. of School Trustees of Clark County School Dist.
...84 Nev. 37, 436 P.2d 219 (1968); Nevada State Bd. Chiropractic Exam'rs. v. Babtkis, 83 Nev. 385, 432 P.2d 498 (1967); Miller v. Munger, 88 Nev. 405, 498 P.2d 1336 (1972); Miller v. West, 88 Nev. 105, 493 P.2d 1332 The appellant does not contend that there was any defect in the notice of non......
-
Lowe v. State Dept. of Commerce, Real Estate Division
...of affirming the decision of the Commission if the record contains substantial evidence to support that decision. Cf. Miller v. Munger, 88 Nev. 405, 498 P.2d 1336 (1972); Miller v. West, 88 Nev. 105, 493 P.2d 1332 In interpreting the appellate function, as here involved, under NRS 645.760, ......
-
Bryant v. Private Investigators' Licensing Bd.
...to support the board's findings and under these circumstances we do not consider the 90 day suspension excessive. Miller v. Munger, 88 Nev. 405, 498 P.2d 1336 (1972). 1 NRS 648.140 provides:'2. A licensee may employ, in connection with such business, as many unlicensed persons as may be nec......