Case Title: In re Potter

Citation: 176 Vt. 574, 2003 VT 101, 838 A.2d 105

Docket Number: 2003-227

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Potter (2003-227); 176 Vt. 574; 838 A.2d 105

2003 VT 101

[Filed 29-Oct-2003]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 8-Jan-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 101

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-227

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2003

  In re Helen Potter	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
        	                       }	Human Services Board
                                       }	
  	                               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 18,158 18,187 18,218

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Petitioner Helen Potter appeals from the Human Services
  Board's denial of her applications for seasonal fuel assistance, crisis
  fuel benefits, and essential person benefits.  She argues that Board erred
  in concluding that she was a roomer in her nephew's home, rather than the
  head of the household, and erred in concluding that she was obligated to
  provide financial information about her nephew to determine her eligibility
  for essential person benefits.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Ms. Potter is eighty-eight years old.  She has lived with her
  nephew, Reginald Benjamin, in his home since 1999.  Ms. Potter's sole
  source of income is $624 per month from Social Security and Supplemental
  Security Income.  In February 2002, with the assistance of an attorney, Ms.
  Potter and Mr. Benjamin entered into a "lease and employment" agreement. 
  The agreement provided that Ms. Potter would lease Mr. Benjamin's
  six-bedroom home for $400 per month plus the cost of all utilities,
  including heat.  According to the agreement, Mr. Benjamin would continue to
  live in the home and Ms. Potter would pay him $600 per month, later reduced
  to $224 per month, to care for her.

       ¶  3.  Ms. Potter granted Mr. Benjamin power of attorney in 2001. 
  His name is on her bank accounts and he withdraws the money that she owes
  him from these accounts.  Mr. Benjamin acknowledged that Ms. Potter has
  insufficient funds to pay for her expenses, such as food and medical bills,
  in addition to her obligations under the lease agreement.  He stated that
  he often pays her expenses himself. 
   
       ¶  4.  In August 2002, Mr. Benjamin filed an application for fuel
  assistance on Ms. Potter's behalf with the Department of Prevention,
  Assistance, Transition and Health Access.  In the application, Mr. Benjamin
  stated that Ms. Potter rented his home and was responsible for the entire
  heating bill.  Mr. Benjamin described himself as Ms. Potter's caregiver. 
  The Department concluded that Ms. Potter was not entitled to seasonal fuel
  assistance as a "head of household," but was instead entitled to a $50 cash
  benefit as a "roomer" in Mr. Benjamin's household.  The Department
  considered Ms. Potter a roomer because Mr. Benjamin, who owned the home,
  lived there full-time.  The Department also noted that Mr. Benjamin had
  previously represented himself as the live-in owner of the home to obtain
  weatherization benefits.  Ms. Potter appealed this decision to the Human
  Services Board.

       ¶  5.  Mr. Benjamin also filed an application for crisis fuel
  benefits on Ms. Potter's behalf.  The Department rejected this request as
  well, finding Ms. Potter ineligible for assistance because she had not used
  her assets -- specifically, a Vermont home that she had transferred to her
  nephew as a gift -- to prevent a home heating crisis.  The Department
  pointed out that, had Ms. Potter not appealed her status as a roomer, it
  would have denied her application on this basis as well, because roomers
  are ineligible for crisis fuel benefits.  Ms. Potter also appealed this
  decision to the Human Services Board.

       ¶  6.  Finally, Mr. Benjamin filed an application on Ms. Potter's
  behalf for essential person benefits.  He listed himself as Ms. Potter's
  "essential person."  In the application, Mr. Benjamin stated that he owned
  a farm as well as the home in which the parties resided.  He indicated that
  he paid $17,000 in property tax and paid for the cost of maintaining his
  vehicles.  He refused, however, to provide any additional information about
  his assets despite the Department's repeated requests. The Department
  warned Ms. Potter that it could not determine eligibility for essential
  person benefits without this information, and it eventually denied the
  application on this basis.  Ms. Potter appealed this decision to the Human
  Services Board as well.
   
       ¶  7.  In January 2003, the Human Services Board consolidated and
  heard Ms. Potter's appeals, and it affirmed the denial of her applications. 
  The Board agreed that Ms. Potter was a roomer in Mr. Benjamin's household
  and as such, she was not entitled to seasonal fuel assistance or crisis
  fuel benefits.  The Board concluded that the parties' purported lease
  agreement had no effect on Ms. Potter's status as a roomer because it was a
  "sham" designed solely to gain fuel assistance. The Board found it
  implausible that Ms. Potter would be financially responsible for the rent
  and all of the expenses of a six-bedroom home, even though Mr. Benjamin was
  the owner and long-time occupant of the home.  The Board also found it
  unlikely that the fair market rental value of the home was $400 per month. 
  It pointed out that, in any event, Ms. Potter had no real right to occupy
  the premises because Mr. Benjamin had a right to live in the home under the
  lease, and he could end the "lease" at any time with thirty days notice. 
  Thus, the Board concluded that Ms. Potter was a roomer and was ineligible
  for seasonal fuel assistance or crisis fuel benefits.  In reaching its
  conclusion, the Board noted that, even if it were to consider Ms. Potter
  the head of the household, which it did not, Mr. Benjamin's income would
  have to be included in determining her eligibility for fuel assistance.  

       ¶  8.  The Board also affirmed the denial of Ms. Potter's request for
  essential person benefits.  The Board concluded that the Department had
  properly denied her application  because she had refused to provide
  information about Mr. Benjamin's income and resources.  This appeal
  followed.
        
       ¶  9.  Ms. Potter first argues that the Board erred in concluding
  that she was a roomer.   She argues that her lease and employment agreement
  with Mr. Benjamin clearly established that she was renting his entire home,
  not a specific room within it.  She asserts that she and Mr. Benjamin were
  entitled to set the lease terms as they saw fit, and the Board's findings
  are inadequate to support its conclusion.  She further argues that, as the
  head of the household, her applications should have been granted without
  considering Mr. Benjamin's assets or income because he was providing her
  with medically necessary personal care.

       ¶  10.  We reject these arguments because the record amply supports
  the Board's conclusion that Ms. Potter was a roomer in Mr. Benjamin's
  household.  See Hall v. Dep't of Social Welfare, 153 Vt. 479, 486-87, 572 A.2d 1342, 1346 (1990) (We will set not set aside the Board's findings
  unless they are clearly erroneous; we will uphold the Board's decision if
  the record contains any credible evidence that fairly and reasonably
  supports its findings.).  Under the Department's rules, a "roomer" is
  someone who pays rent "for exclusive occupation of one or more rooms as
  separate living quarters within the head of household's living unit."  Fuel
  Program § 2901.1(5), 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 006-7 (2000).  A roomer
  is not entitled to seasonal fuel assistance because he does not have a fuel
  account separate from the head of the household.  Instead, a roomer is
  eligible for an annual $50.00 cash benefit.  Fuel Program § 2906(d), 5 Code
  of Vermont Rules 13 170 006-20 (2000).  A head of household, on the other
  hand, is eligible for seasonal assistance because he is financially
  responsible for the cost of occupying the living unit.  Fuel Program §
  2901.1(3), 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 006-6 (2000); Fuel Program §
  2901.2 (3)(a)(1), 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 006-9 (2000). 

       ¶  11.  The Board's conclusion that Ms. Potter was a roomer rather
  than a head of household is supported by the evidence.  As the Board
  pointed out, it would be illogical for Ms. Potter, whose monthly income is
  $624, to rent a six-bedroom home for $400 and pay Mr. Benjamin the
  remaining $224 of her income for caretaking services, and still claim
  responsibility for paying the cost of utilities for the living unit.  She
  clearly has no financial ability to perform the terms of this lease
  agreement.  Additionally, as the Board found, Mr. Benjamin owns the home in
  which the parties reside and has been living there for a substantial amount
  of time.  Under these circumstances, the Board properly rejected the
  purported agreement between the parties as a sham designed solely to
  circumvent eligibility requirements.  As the Board found, the parties'
  living situation is properly characterized as "an elderly woman who lives
  in a room in her nephew's home for which she pays him rent."  The Board's
  findings adequately support its conclusion that Ms. Potter was a roomer,
  and as such, was ineligible for seasonal and crisis fuel assistance. 

       ¶  12.  Ms. Potter next argues that the Board improperly denied her
  request for essential person benefits.  She asserts that she did not need
  to provide information about Mr. Benjamin's assets because her application
  should have been considered based on her income and assets alone.  Ms.
  Potter misreads the Department's rules.  
   
       ¶  13.  The Vermont Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled (AABD) program
  provides cash payments to any aged, blind, or disabled person who has a
  needy "essential person" living in their home.  Aid to the Aged, Blind or
  Disabled § 2750, 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 002-25 (1996).  An
  "essential person" is generally someone who lives with and provides
  medically necessary personal care or homemaker services to an aged, blind,
  or disabled person.  Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled §§ 2750-2751.2, 5
  Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 002-25-27 (1996).  In determining whether an
  applicant is entitled to assistance, the Department considers the income
  and resources of an applicant's "assistance group."  Aid to the Aged, Blind
  or Disabled § 2752, 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 002-30 (1996).  Those
  who must provide income and resource information include the aged, blind,
  or disabled person and that person's spouse or "non-spouse essential
  person."  Id. 

       ¶  14.  In this case, Ms. Potter designated Mr. Benjamin as her
  "non-spouse essential person."  Consequently, she was obligated to provide
  information about his income and resources to establish her eligibility for
  benefits.  See Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled § 2750, 5 Code of Vermont
  Rules 13 170 002-25 (1996).  Although Ms. Potter provided information about
  her own finances, she refused to provide information about Mr. Benjamin's,
  despite the Department's repeated requests that she verify his income and
  resources.  The Department must act within thirty days and it may deny an
  application when an applicant refuses to provide necessary information. 
  See Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled § 2712.1, 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13
  170 002-5 (1996) (When an applicant fails to do her part in the eligibility
  investigation process, such as failing to give necessary information or
  proofs asked for, her application may be denied if a decision cannot be
  made within the time limit); see also Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled §
  2712.2, 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 002-6 (1996); Aid to the Aged, Blind
  or Disabled § 2712.4, 5 Code of Vermont Rules 13 170 002-7 (1996)
  (requiring proof of all income and resources).  In this case, the Board
  properly denied Ms. Potter's application because she refused to provide
  information about Mr. Benjamin's income and resources.

       Affirmed.

                                       BY THE COURT:

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice
              
                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Paul L. Reiber, Associate Justice