Opinion ID: 2226867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: state's claim to boldt's benefits

Text: The state refuses to return to Boldt the $13,662 which it received from the Social Security Administration for his care. The controlling law on this issue is described by Conservatorship of Grams, 63 Wis.2d 194, 216 N.W.2d 889 (1974). [5] In Grams as in the present case the party was committed to a state institution because he was incompetent to stand trial. In both cases the state sought compensation for the costs of commitment under sec. 46.10, Stats. [6] In Grams the court held that there can be no recovery where the incarceration is founded on a pending criminal charge or a criminal sentence. Grams at 198. According to Grams a person committed for incompetency to stand trial can be required to pay for the costs of his commitment only if his commitment is first converted to a civil commitment under the provisions of ch. 51, Stats. 1973. The state would thus have a claim to the funds at issue only if Boldt's commitment were civil in nature. In the lower courts the state suggested that Boldt's commitment was changed to a civil one sometime during his last year and one-half of commitment. If this were so, then the state would have had a lawful claim under Grams to the Social Security benefits received during that time and summary judgment in favor of the petitioner would not have been proper. As the court of appeals opinion explained, however, this issue was not properly raised before the trial court. In its briefs on review to this court the state has not mentioned this issue. This court concludes that the trial court properly treated the petitioner's entire commitment as based on lacking competency to stand trial. The state attempts to distinguish the present case from Grams on the grounds that in Grams the state was seeking to collect the costs of commitment from the individual while in the present case the state has already secured the funds and the individual is seeking to have them returned. Although this distinction has a logical pertinence to the issue of the state's immunity to suit, it is irrelevant to the merits of the underlying claim. This court has already ruled that the state gave its consent to suit and the petitioner was properly before the court. Once this is established it cannot make any difference in the controlling law if the state is seeking to collect funds for the maintenance of the individual (as in Grams ) or whether the individual is seeking to recover funds wrongfully paid for his maintenance (as in the present case). The petitioner's recovery against the state was allowed on the theory of money had and received, also known as unjust enrichment. The state argues that the petitioner's claim was without merit because the state, since it spent the funds in question and more on the petitioner's maintenance, was not unjustly enriched. This court does not agree with such reasoning. Claiming authority under sec. 46.10, Stats., the state took $13,662 which would otherwise have gone to the petitioner. The state was obligated under the law as it existed at that time to pay the full cost of the petitioner's commitment. The state avoided part of that obligation by taking the Social Security benefits to which the petitioner was entitled. The state thus avoided paying out of its own funds $13,662 which it was lawfully required to so pay. By avoiding this obligatory expenditure the state saved $13,662. It was thus unjustly enriched. [4] It is the decision of this court that the state has no lawful claim to the funds collected under the claimed authority of sec. 46.10, Stats., and that these funds are the lawful property of the petitioner.