Cronin v. Department of Social Welfare

Supreme Court of Vermont

Cronin v. Department of Social Welfare

485 A.2d 1253, 145 Vt. 187, 1984 Vt. LEXIS 575

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedOctober 26, 1984

Docket83-161

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 485 A.2d 1253 (Cronin v. Department of Social Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cronin v. Department of Social Welfare, 485 A.2d 1253, 145 Vt. 187, 1984 Vt. LEXIS 575 (Vt. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals the decision of the Vermont Human Services Board (Board) affirming an action of the Vermont Department of Social Welfare (Department), which reduced the amount of plaintiff’s Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) grant. The reduction was based on a determination that the plaintiff incurred lower housing expenses because of the granting of a one year moratorium on the *188 monthly principal and interest payments due on a mortgage held by the U.S. Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA). We affirm.

The Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual (W.A.M.) § 2245.3 provides that housing allowances for recipients “shall be budgeted ‘as incurred’ . . . .” The plaintiff argues that she is incurring expenses on the mortgage despite the moratorium because the moratorium does not relieve her of the debt, but merely allows her to postpone payment. The Board, however, had previously determined that the meaning of an “incurred” housing expense does not include a mortgage during the effective period of a moratorium. See Vermont Human Services Board Fair Hearing Number 3748 (Aug. 6, 1981). The Board reaffirmed that interpretation in deciding the case before us. The issue presented on appeal is the validity of that interpretation.

Administrative agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations “are usually given great weight by this Court.” Bishop v. Town of Barre, 140 Vt. 564, 577, 442 A.2d 50, 56 (1982) (citing In re Brooks, 130 Vt. 83, 85-86, 286 A.2d 279, 281 (1971)); see also Huntington v. Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services, 139 Vt. 416, 419, 430 A.2d 460, 462 (1981). An agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 276 (1969) (citing Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)) ; 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7:22 (2d ed. 1979). The determination that an incurred expense does not include a mortgage while a moratorium is in effect is reasonable, consistent with W.A.M. § 2245.3, and not plainly erroneous. The decision of the Board is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals the decision of the Vermont Human Services Board (Board) affirming an action of the Vermont Department of Social Welfare (Department), which reduced the amount of plaintiff’s Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) grant. The reduction was based on a determination that the plaintiff incurred lower housing expenses because of the granting of a one year moratorium on the *188 monthly principal and interest payments due on a mortgage held by the U.S. Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA). We affirm.

The Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual (W.A.M.) § 2245.3 provides that housing allowances for recipients “shall be budgeted ‘as incurred’ . . . .” The plaintiff argues that she is incurring expenses on the mortgage despite the moratorium because the moratorium does not relieve her of the debt, but merely allows her to postpone payment. The Board, however, had previously determined that the meaning of an “incurred” housing expense does not include a mortgage during the effective period of a moratorium. See Vermont Human Services Board Fair Hearing Number 3748 (Aug. 6, 1981). The Board reaffirmed that interpretation in deciding the case before us. The issue presented on appeal is the validity of that interpretation.

Administrative agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations “are usually given great weight by this Court.” Bishop v. Town of Barre, 140 Vt. 564, 577, 442 A.2d 50, 56 (1982) (citing In re Brooks, 130 Vt. 83, 85-86, 286 A.2d 279, 281 (1971)); see also Huntington v. Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services, 139 Vt. 416, 419, 430 A.2d 460, 462 (1981). An agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 276 (1969) (citing Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)) ; 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7:22 (2d ed. 1979). The determination that an incurred expense does not include a mortgage while a moratorium is in effect is reasonable, consistent with W.A.M. § 2245.3, and not plainly erroneous. The decision of the Board is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 A.2d 1253, 145 Vt. 187, 1984 Vt. LEXIS 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cronin-v-department-of-social-welfare-vt-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack