Brown v. Adult & Family Services Division

608 P.2d 197, 45 Or. App. 263, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2312
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMarch 17, 1980
DocketNo. 2-7-MYL186-4, CA 14507
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 608 P.2d 197 (Brown v. Adult & Family Services Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Adult & Family Services Division, 608 P.2d 197, 45 Or. App. 263, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2312 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

JOSEPH, P.J.

This is a review of an order of the Adult and Family Services Division (AFS) declaring petitioner liable for an overpayment of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) made to her for the use of her niece and nephew. Petitioner contends that she should not be held personally liable because she has no legal obligation to support the children and acted only as their fiduciary payee in accepting and disbursing ADC benefits solely for the childrens’ needs.

Petitioner was notified that the children’s ADC benefits would be reduced because AFS had adopted a different method of calculating their needs. Petitioner requested a hearing on behalf of the children, believing that the proposed reduction was unlawful. She was told that, pending an order, she could either accept reduced benefits on behalf of the children (and be awarded a retroactive payment if she prevailed) or continue to receive unreduced benefits and risk liability for overpayment if the decision was not in the children’s favor. Petitioner chose to receive the unreduced benefits, which were spent entirely for the chil-drens’ needs.

A hearing was held, and the order upheld the agency’s reduction of ADC benefits. Petitioner was then billed for the overpayment.1 She requested a hearing, contending that, although the children might be liable for the overpayment, she was not. A second hearing was held, and petitioner was found liable. It is that order that is now reviewed.

There was no basis in the statutes or the regulations upon which to base AFS’s claim for reimbursement from petitioner. We are cited to OAR 461-07-250 for a definition of "overpyament”:

"An overpayment is any medical or non-medical, cash, or vendor Public Assistance payment to or on [266]*266behalf of an individual in any amount exceeding that to which he is entitled or for which he is eligible, regardless of whether ineligibility results from receipt of income or resources in excess of need or from inability to meet any other factor of eligibility.”

OAR 461-07-270 provides in part:

"The Adult and Family Services Division shall recover from an applicant or recipient the amount of any overpayment as defined in 461-07-250 ***.”

When we look at the statutory authority upon which these regualtions are based, ORS 411.1052 and ORS 411.630,3 it is as plain as can be that neither furnishes [267]*267any support for a duty to be imposed on petitioner to reimburse AFS. The state asserts no other basis for recovery. The order must be set aside. ORS 183.482(8)(a).4

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cook v. Employment Division
625 P.2d 668 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 P.2d 197, 45 Or. App. 263, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-adult-family-services-division-orctapp-1980.