Court Opinion

ID: 9531434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:52.128094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:27.317645
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting.
There are three sufficient reasons why the property of the deceased pensioner should not revert to the United States. They are: 1) the government of the United States could not under the law, by subsequent legislation, alter or place conditions on moneys already received by way of pension, as it is urged was done in this case; 2) historically, the statute in question relates to money and the term “funds” should be construed to refer to money only; 3) the context of the Act clearly indicates that in using the term “funds” Congress had in *433mind money in the form of currency or credit, and that it was the intention of Congress that the statute apply only to money.
1. In 1930 the United States enacted into the law a provision for the return to the United States of funds derived from pension benefits upon the death of a mentally incompetent veteran dying without heirs. In the instant case two bonds, each in the sum of one thousand dollars, had been acquired in 1929 from money accumulated from the veteran’s pension, and were part of the assets of the estate at the time of the pensioner’s death. Benefits received by the veteran prior to the 1930 enactment should be held unaffected by the subsequent legislation.
A matured installment of a pension is a vested right. And an installment properly received by a pensioner is taken under the statute as it then exists and the status of the installment cannot be altered or interfered with by subsequent amendments of the law under which the pension was created. Such is the law as enunciated in the case of Moran v. Firemen’s & Policemen’s Pension Fund Commission of Jersey City, 20 N.J. Misc. 479, 28 A. (2d) 885.
Certainly as to property acquired with money derived from a pension prior to the statute creating a reversionary interest in the United States, the decision of the majority is erroneous.
2. As already suggested, the first enactment providing for a reversion to the United States of funds derived from pension benefits upon the death of a mentally incompetent veteran who dies without heirs came into existence in 1930. I refer to Section 450 (3) Title 38 U.S.C. (Act July 3, 1930, Chapter 849). A perusal of the section will show that it is very similar to the present effective Act. The latter is quoted in the majority opinion.
In the second session of the 84th Congress in 1956, House Bill No. H.R. 10478 was introduced. This proposed *434bill contained the words “any funds or property” in lieu of the term “funds” as now used in the Act. By reason of the retroactive effect of the bill and the- use of the term “funds or property,” it failed of passage. Hence, it would appear that historically the term “funds” had a very limited meaning and that Congress has so construed the word, i.e., that property other than funds was not to be affected.
3.- Recognized as the best rule for the construction of statutes is the resort to the context of the legislation. The Section in question contains the term “funds” at least five times. “Any part not so paid and any funds of a mentally incompetent or insane veteran not paid to the chief officer of the institution * * * may be ordered held in the treasury to the credit of such beneficiary.” Money clearly is referred to in this sentence of the Act, and it certainly does not mean that any bonds not paid to the “chief officer of the institution” may be held in the treasury. The next sentence reads: “All funds so held shall be disbursed under the order, etc. * * * ” The term “disbursed” generally “has reference to the paying out or expending of moneys or currency.” Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Harper, 14 Cal. (2d) 379, 94 P. (2d) 586, 124 A.L.R. 1169.
The succeeding sentence of the Act still speaks of the fund in the hands of the treasury to the credit of such beneficiary. Again, it is clear that the fund mentioned refers to money, for the sentence begins, “Any balance remaining in such fund.” The last sentence in the Act directs that funds in the hands of the guardian shall escheat to the United States under certain circumstances “to the Veterans Administration, and shall be deposited to the credit of the applicable current appropriation.” Considered in context the word “funds” again appears to refer to money, for this last sentence refers to where they shall be deposited, and it is crystal clear that “funds deposited” means “moneys deposited.”
“[I]t is a fundamental rule of statutory construction *435that every law is adopted as a whole, and a clause which standing alone might seem of doubtful import, may yet be made plain by comparison with other clauses or portions of the same law.” Martinez v. People, 111 Colo. 52, 137 P. (2d) 690; Carter v. Denver, 114 Colo. 33, 160 P. (2d) 991.
“When any word is used having more than one meaning the sense in which it is employed is to be gathered from the context — and we think it impossible for any one to doubt as to the intention of the parties in this case. The term par funds, or New York funds, is as well understood as the term cash, and it would be a reproach to the law if its ministers could not understand that which is obvious to all the rest of the world.” Lacy v. Holbrook, Bowman & Co., 4 Ala. 88. (Emphasis supplied.)
I respectfully submit that the 1930 Act could not affect benefits received in any manner or property acquired prior to its enactment. I further submit that the term “funds” has, historically and by virtue of the context of the Act, a very limited meaning, to-wit: money or currency.