Powers v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare

• Decision Date: 04 June 1962
• Docket Number: No. 23619,23619
• Parties: Anna E. POWERS, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 23

359 S.W.2d 23

Anna E. POWERS, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant.

No. 23619.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

June 4, 1962.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1962.

Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Moody Mansur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

David R. Clevenger, William D. Lay, Platte City, Preston Forsee, Kansas City, for respondent.

HUNTER, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the State Department of Public Health and Welfare from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, holding that the decision of appellant's director was arbitrary and unreasonable in finding that respondent, Mrs. Anna E. Powers, owned real property not furnishing shelter for her which had a current market value of $750.00 or more and hence was properly removed from the old age assistance rolls.

The pertinent evidence essentially is neither controverted nor conflicting. Anna E. Powers is seventy years of age and an unemployed widow. Prior to 1948 she inherited from her mother a tract of land near Parkville, Missouri, containing 12 acres upon which was located the old family home. At the time of the hearing this house in which she lived was sixty-eight years old, dilapidated and without plumbing, running water or modern conveniences.

In 1948, Mrs. Powers' daughter, Dorothy, became engaged to Lloyd Murray. Dorothy had been living with her mother who wanted her to continue to live near her after the marriage so that they could take care of her, take her to the grocery store, to church and do other needed things for her.

Mrs. Powers testified that upon her daughter's marriage to Mr. Murray she made them a gift of one acre ('Murray Acre') of the mentioned 12 acres on their promise that they would build a house on it, near her home. ¹ It is undisputed that in 1948 the Murrays immediately took possession of this one acre and built a house on it with money that Mr. Murray borrowed from his father who mortgaged his own home to obtain it, supplemented some by money Lloyd Murray had. Mrs. Powers contributed no money or materials for this house and disclaimed any interest in it. The Murray home on the one acre tract is located about 200 feet from Mrs. Powers' home.

In 1949, about seven years before Mrs. Powers applied for old age assistance, she employed Mr. Willis, the Platte County surveyor, to survey the boundaries of the 'Murray Acre'. This survey is in evidence.

In 1955, upon attaining the required age of 65, Mrs. Powers applied for old age assistance. She testified that at that time she told Mrs. Younger, of the county welfare office, that she did not own the 'Murray Acre' but that Lloyd and Dorothy Murray owned it. She stated she also told this to a Mrs. Listrom of that office.

In November, 1959, Lloyd tried to borrow some money on the 'Murray Acre' house, and was unable to do so because Mrs. Powers had not given him a deed to the 'Murray Acre'. Lloyd and Dorothy then requested Mrs. Powers to furnish them with a deed to it and she did so. This deed was recorded on December 14, 1959.

This deed came to the attention of the county welfare office and on January 13, 1960, the county welfare director had Mrs. Powers in and discussed with her, her daughter, and her attorney, the effect of the deed on her old age assistance case. Mrs. Powers, her daughter, and her attorney, testified that the county director told them at that discussion that before Mrs. Powers could again be eligible for old age assistance the property would have to be transferred back to Mrs. Powers so she would be in the same status as prior to the transfer. The county director denied that this was what she told them and stated that what she said to them was, '* * * that before she (Mrs. Powers) could ever be eligible again there would either be a period time consisting of five years, and I (county director) explained to you (Mrs. Power's attorney) she would have to remain in the same status as she was in prior to the transfer, which would in turn mean that the property would have to be transferred back to her. However, when that was done we discussed that the property would become an available resource.'

Shortly thereafter and on February 9, 1960, the Murrays executed a deed on the 'Murray Acre' to Mrs. Powers. After the deed was recorded the county director deemed the 'Murray Acre' to be an available resource to Mrs. Powers which precluded her from eligibility to the old age assistance rolls. She was removed from the rolls on April 26, 1960, for this reason.

Appellant introduced into evidence at the hearing on December 13, 1960, its rule and regulation No. 13 which provides in part that when an applicant or recipient owns real estate which is not furnishing shelter and its current market value is $750 or more if the applicant or recipient is single, such property shall be considered as a resource which will render such person ineligible for public assistance. ² Additionally, it was stipulated and agreed at the hearing by appellant's referee and respondent that the house on the one acre tract, 'known as the Murray house, was paid for by the Murrays, and we can also stipulate Mrs. Powers has an available resource consisting of cash value of insurance of $434.85.' (Emphasis ours.) It is also agreed by the parties that the one acre tract with the house on it was worth over $750.

Appellant's position and contention as expressed and given by appellant's state director as the controlling part of his decision and relied upon in appellant's brief is that 'Claimant in 1948 attempted a gift of the property but the gift was ineffective except as between the parties and third parties with knowledge because there was no legal transfer. * * * The Division of Welfare ascertains who are the record title owners of real estate in determining eligibility for public assistance, and neither the Division of Welfare nor the Department of Public Health and Welfare does not have equity jurisdiction to consider or adjudicate contractual rights or to declare title to real estate, and, therefore, we cannot determine that real estate belongs to someone not the legal record title holder. * * * To determine title or ownership of land such question must be settled by a court of competent jurisdiction in a direct proceeding to determine such title. Considering the above * * * it ('Murray Acre' with house on it) must be considered as a resource and, therefore, claimant is ineligible to receive Old Age Assistance benefits at this time.'

In his oral argument before this court appellant's counsel advised the court that 'it is the policy of the director not to even consider evidence of any equitable interest but to consider only record title' in determining a claimant's resources which affect his eligibility for public assistance.

On an appeal involving the decision of the director of public health and welfare the authority of this court, as that of the circuit court, is limited to a determination from the record of the hearing whether a fair hearing was granted and whether the decision made by the director was arbitrary and unreasonable. Section 208.100(4), (5) RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S.; Ellis v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, 365 Mo.Sup. 614, 285 S.W.2d 634; Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo.Sup. 1032, 270 S.W.2d 817.

The division of welfare through its director by statutory authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity in conducting hearings and determining eligibility for public assistance. Section 208.010 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. provides in part, 'In determining the eligibility of an applicant for public assistance under this law, it shall be the duty of the division of welfare to consider and toke into account all facts and circumstance surrounding the applicant, including his earning capacity, income and resources, from whatever source received, and if from all the facts and circumstances the applicant is not found to be in need, assistance shall be denied.' (Emphasis ours.)

Section 208.080(3) RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. provides, 'The director of the department of public health and welfare shall give * * * a fair hearing * * *. Every applicant * * * shall be entitled to be present, in person and by attorney, at the hearing, and shall be entitled to introduce into the record at said hearing any and all evidence, by witnesses or otherwise, pertinent to such applicant's eligibility, and all such evidence shall be taken down, preserved and shall become a part of the applicant's record in said case, and upon the record so made the director of the department of public health and welfare shall determine all questions presented by the appeal.' (Emphasis ours.)

Section 208.100 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. provides in part, that on appeal, 'If the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by said director, or that his decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, the court in such event shall remand the proceedings for redetermination of the issues by said director.'

We have concluded that in the light of these statutes the director has failed to grant Mrs. Powers a fair hearing. The determinative question in this case concededly is whether Mrs. Powers has real estate assets (other than the home in which she lives) exceeding $750 in value. If so, she is not eligible. If not, she is eligible. This in turn requires the...