Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board
Decision Date | 10 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71-5656,71-5656 |
Citation | 34 L.Ed.2d 608,93 S.Ct. 590,409 U.S. 413 |
Parties | Doris PHILPOTT and William Wilkes, Petitioners, v. ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A Social Security Act provision, 42 U.S.C. § 407, which prohibits subjecting federal disability insurance benefits and other benefits to any legal process bars a State from recovering such benefits retroactively paid to a beneficiary, and in this case no exception can be implied on the ground that if the federal payments had been made monthly there would have been a corresponding reduction in the state payments. Pp. 415—417.
59 N.J. 75, 279 A.2d 806, reversed.
George Charles Bruno, Newark, N.J., for petitioners.
Ronald Reichstein, Montclair, N.J., for respondent.
Wilkes,1 one of the petitioners, applied to respondent, one of New Jersey's welfare agencies, for financial as- sistance based upon need by reason of permanent and total disability. As a condition of receiving assistance, a recipient is required by New Jersey law to execute an agreement to reimburse the county welfare board for all payments received thereunder.2 The purpose apparently is to enable the board to obtain reimbursement out of subsequently discovered or acquired real and personal property of the recipient.
Wilkes applied to respondent for such assistance in 1966 and he executed the required agreement. Respondent determined Wilkes' monthly maintenance needs to be $108; and, finding that he had no other income, respondent fixed the monthly benefits at that amount and began making assistance payments, no later than January 1, 1967. The payments would have been less if Wilkes had been receiving federal disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, and respondent advised him to apply for those federal benefits.
In 1968 Wilkes was awarded retroactive disability insurance benefits under § 223 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 815, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 423, covering the period from May 1966 into the summer of 1968. Those benefits, calculated on the basis of $69.60 per month for 20 months and $78.20 per month for six months amounted to $1,864.20. A check in that amount was deposited in the account which Philpott holds as trustee for Wilkes. Under New Jersey law, we are told, the filing of a notice of such a reimbursement agreement has the same force and effect as a judgment. 59 N.J. 75, 80, 279 A.2d 806, 809.
Respondent sued to reach the bank account under the agreement to reimburse. The trial court held that respondent was barred by the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 624, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 407, from recovering any amount from the account.3 104 N.J.Super. 280, 249 A.2d 639. The Appellate Division affirmed. 109 N.J.Super. 48, 262 A.2d 227. The Supreme Court reversed.4 59 N.J. 75, 279 A.2d 806. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 406 U.S. 917, 92 S.Ct. 1779, 32 L.Ed.2d 115.
On its face, the Social Security Act in § 407 bars the State of New Jersey from reaching the federal disability payments paid to Wilkes. The language is all-inclusive:5 '(N)one of the moneys paid or payable . . . under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process . . ..' The moneys paid as retroactive benefits were 'moneys paid . . . under this subchapter'; and the suit brought was an attempt to subject the money to 'levy, attachment . . . or other legal process.'
New Jersey argues that if the amount of social security benefits received from the Federal Government had been made monthly, the amount of state welfare benefits could have been reduced by the amount of the federal grant. We see no reason to base an implied exemption from § 407 on that ground. We see no reason why a State, performing its statutory duty to take care of the needy, should be in a preferred position as compared with any other creditor. Indeed, since the Federal Government provides one-half of the funds for assistance under the New Jersey program of disability relief, the State, concededly, on recovery of any sums by way of reimbursement, would have to account to the Federal Government for the latter's share.
The protection afforded by § 407 is to 'moneys paid' and we think the analogy to veterans' benefits exemptions which we reviewed in Porter v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159, 82 S.Ct. 1231, 8 L.Ed.2d 407, is relevant here. We held in that case that veterans' benefits deposited in a savings and loan association on behalf of a veteran retained the 'quality of moneys' and had not become a permanent investment. Id., at 161 162, 82 S.Ct., at 1232.
In the present case, as in Porter, the funds on deposit were readily withdrawable and retained the quality of 'moneys' within the purview of § 407. The Supreme Court of New Jersey referred to cases6 where a State which has provided care and maintenance to an incompetent veteran at times is a 'creditor' for purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 3101, and at other times is not. But § 407 does not refer to any 'claim of creditors'; it imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits. That is broad enough to include all claimants, including a State.
The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnes v. Cohen
...lump-sum rule, such as retroactive Social Security benefits, are not subject to reimbursement. See Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973) (Social Security Act prohibits state enforcement of reimbursement from retroactive Social Security dis......
-
Ogdon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.
...lien. Nothing we have said is in the least inconsistent with the rationale or decision of the United States Supreme Court in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board (decided January 10, 1973) ---- U.S. ----, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608, reversing Essex County Welfare Board v. Philpott, 59 N......
-
Quern v. Jordan
...in reimbursement of amounts granted under state welfare laws violated this Court's decision in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973). The District Court agreed, and while it denied retroactive relief against the State on the basis of Edelm......
-
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
...a most important role in the statu- tory scheme. Like anti-attachment provisions generally, see Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973); Wissner v. Wissner, supra, it ensures that the benefits actually reach the beneficiary. It pre-empts all......
-
4 Garnishment
...[151 Ga.App. 573, 260 SE2d 501 (1979) (social security); 155 Ga.App. 178, 270 SE2d 245 (1980); Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd. , 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (SSI); Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962) (VA benefits)]. "Monies" are funds readily withdrawable in the form of ......
-
Chapter Seven Property
...407(a) imposes a "broad bar against the use of legal process to reach all Social Security benefits." Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413, 417, 93 S.Ct. 590, 592, 34 L.Ed.2d 608, 612 (1973). South Carolina courts have not considered whether Social Security payments are subject......
-
4 Garnishment
...[151 Ga.App. 573, 260 SE2d 501 (1979) (social security); 155 Ga.App. 178, 270 SE2d 245 (1980); Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd. , 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (SSI); Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962) (VA benefits)]. "Monies" are funds readily withdrawable in the form of ......
-
4 Garnishment
...[151 Ga.App. 573, 260 SE2d 501 (1979) (social security); 155 Ga.App. 178, 270 SE2d 245 (1980); Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (SSI); Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962) (VA benefits)]. "Monies" are funds readily withdrawable in the form of c......