Title: Berry v. Burdman
Citation: 604 P.2d 1288, 93 Wash. 2d 17
Docket Number: 45275
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 1980

93 Wn.2d 17 (1980) 604 P.2d 1288 MAVIS BERRY, ET AL, Respondents, v. MILTON BURDMAN, ET AL, Appellants. No. 45275. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. January 10, 1980. *18 Slade Gorton, Attorney General, and Walter E. White, Assistant, for appellants. Tony Lee of Evergreen Legal Services, for respondents. WRIGHT, J. This is a class action, the certified class being: Summary judgment was granted to plaintiff class against the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Office of Support Enforcement (OSE). The matter came directly to this court. Plaintiffs-respondents contend on behalf of the class that certain DSHS rules violate the Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) provisions of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.A § 601 et seq. (1977)) and rules of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) included in 45 C.F.R. § 232.12 (1977). *19 The relevant part of the Social Security Act is 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a) (1977), which reads in part: (Italics ours.) Implementing this statute, the HEW secretary promulgated 45 C.F.R. § 232.12 (1977) which read in part: (Italics ours.) Pursuant to these federal provisions, DSHS also promulgated rules. The provisions involved here are contained in WAC 388-14-200, which reads in part: (Italics ours.) In question are WAC 388-14-200(2)(d) and 388-14-200(3), which we hold to be valid, and WAC 388-14-200(4), which we hold to be invalid. The Social Security Act makes cooperation a condition of AFDC eligibility. The act requires assignment of support money received from an absent parent and the HEW regulations extend this requirement to include paying that support money to the proper state agency in this state, OSE. *22 WAC 388-14-200(2)(d) and (3) are consistent with these requirements. It should be noted the present DSHS regulations as amended require remittance of support payments to OSE within 8 days rather than immediately. [1, 2] WAC 388-14-200(4), however, presents a problem because it establishes new requirements for eligibility. The new requirements include entering into a written agreement to provide inter alia for repayment in monthly installment payments of not less than 10 percent of the original amount not remitted. In case of any default in the making of these payments or in remitting support money thereafter, the whole amount must be paid in full. Such requirements are not imposed or authorized in either the Social Security Act or the HEW regulations. In Burns v. Department of Social &amp; Health Servs., 20 Wn. App. 585, 581 P.2d 1069 (1978) the Court of Appeals said: (Footnote omitted.) Burns, at 588. In Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 43 L. Ed. 2d 469, 95 S. Ct. 1180 (1975), the *23 United States Supreme Court stated: "King, Townsend and Carleson establish only that once the federal standard of eligibility is defined, a participating State may not deny aid to persons who come within it in the absence of a clear indication that Congress meant the coverage to be optional." Burns v. Alcala, supra at 580. Here the clear indication is to the contrary. Congress has stated in the Social Security Act the AFDC program objectives: 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 (1977). It is apparent that the harsh provision of the DSHS rules requiring immediate repayment of the full amount in certain instances most often makes it impossible for the recipient to regain eligibility. It is hard to understand how a department charged with service to people could promulgate such a cruel regulation. The rule is tantamount to an adhesion contract in its most oppressive form. True, any provision for recovery of sums from public assistance recipients presents difficulties. These human beings generally receive only the bare minimum necessary for a reasonable existence. To take any part of that minimum away for repayment of any amount due the state results in hardship. This provision for repayment in full, however, exceeds the hardship of other repayment schemes and surpasses all bounds of reason. We hold that WAC 388-14-200(4) is void because it conflicts with the Social Security Act and the HEW regulations. Having reached this conclusion we do not need to *24 discuss plaintiffs' other contentions and affirm the trial court. We also affirm the trial court's decision to allow attorneys' fees to respondents in the sum of $6,500. These are called for under RCW 74.08.080 and several cases decided by this court, including Tofte v. Department of Social &amp; Health Servs., 85 Wn.2d 161, 531 P.2d 808 (1975). In that case we said: Tofte, at 165. See also Whitehead v. Department of Social &amp; Health Servs., 92 Wn.2d 265, 595 P.2d 926 (1979). We affirm the trial court and remand only for the purpose of fixing fees for respondents' counsel on this appeal. UTTER, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, BRACHTENBACH, HOROWITZ, DOLLIVER, HICKS, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied May 14, 1980.