Document: 409 U.S. 413 93 S.Ct. 590 34 L.Ed.2d 608 Doris PHILPOTT and William Wilkes, Petitioners,v.ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD. No. 71-5656. Argued Dec. 4, 1972. Decided Jan. 10, 1973. Syllabus A Social Security Act provision, 42 U.S.C. § 407, which prohibits subjecting federal disability insurance benefits other to any legal process bars a State from recovering such retroactively paid beneficiary, in this case no exception can be implied on the ground that if payments had been made monthly there would have corresponding reduction 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, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion of Court. 1 Wilkes,1 one petitioners, applied respondent, New Jersey's welfare agencies, financial assistance based upon need by reason permanent total disability. As condition receiving assistance, recipient is required Jersey law execute an agreement reimburse county board all received thereunder.2 The purpose apparently enable obtain reimbursement out subsequently discovered or acquired real personal property recipient. 2 Wilkes respondent 1966 he executed agreement. Respondent determined Wilkes' maintenance needs $108; and, finding income, fixed at amount began making payments, later than January 1, 1967. less under Act, advised him apply those benefits. 3 In 1968 was awarded retroactive 223 70 Stat. 815, as amended, 423, covering period May into summer 1968. Those benefits, calculated basis $69.60 per month 20 months $78.20 six months, amounted $1,864.20. check deposited account Philpott holds trustee Wilkes. Under law, we are told, filing notice has same force effect judgment. 80, 809. 4 sued reach bank reimburse. trial court held barred 49 624, account.3 104 N.J.Super. 280, 249 639. Appellate Division affirmed. 109 48, 262 227. Supreme Court reversed.4 806. here petition writ certiorari granted. 406 917, 92 1779, 32 115. 5 On its face, 407 reaching language all-inclusive:5 '(N)one moneys payable . subchapter shall subject execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, ..' were 'moneys subchapter'; suit brought attempt money 'levy, attachment process.' 6 argues social security Federal Government monthly, could reduced grant. We see base exemption ground. why State, performing statutory duty take care needy, should preferred position compared with creditor. Indeed, since provides one-half funds program relief, concededly, recovery sums way reimbursement, latter's share. 7 protection afforded paid' think analogy veterans' exemptions reviewed Porter v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 370 159, 82 1231, 8 relevant here. savings loan association behalf veteran retained 'quality moneys' not become investment. Id., 161 162, S.Ct., 1232. present case, Porter, deposit readily withdrawable quality 'moneys' within purview 407. referred cases6 where provided incompetent times 'creditor' purposes 38 3101, not. But does refer 'claim creditors'; it imposes broad bar against use That enough include claimants, including State. 9 also relied 404, provision permits Secretary recover overpayments old age, survivors, overpayment seeking And Solicitor General, speaking Secretary, concedes pecuniary interest United States outcome aliquot share recovery, ambit 404. 10 By Supremacy Clause judgment below 11 Judgment payment controversy name petitioner trust N.J.Stat.Ann. 44:7—14(a) (Supp. 1972—1973) provides: 'Every require, granting part property, either personal, person applying age pledged said guaranty so granted pursuant provisions chapter. each applicant properly acknowledged advances granted, agreement, assign board, collateral advances, his specify.' Title 'The right future transferable assignable, equity, none rights existing process, operation bankruptcy insolvency law.' Since did claim entire but only own currently rather because stipulated facts ambiguous when actually remanded determination precise respondent's claim. Supra, n. 3. See Savoid District Columbia, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 288 F.2d 851; Columbia Reilly, 102 U.S.App.D.C., 9, 524. decision below, 85, 812.

Category: 1