{
  "id": 8528028,
  "name": "MARY ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. DAVID T. FLAHERTY, Secretary, N. C. Dept. of Human Resources, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. Flaherty",
  "decision_date": "1989-04-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8818SC488",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 319"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "308 Minn. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        897839
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/308/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "140",
          "parenthetical": "unless context clearly requires otherwise, statutory definition of' term employed wherever such term appears"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564105
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "345",
          "parenthetical": "unless context clearly requires otherwise, statutory definition of' term employed wherever such term appears"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0342-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 8398,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20560117597589667
    },
    "sha256": "1233446a8a28e26d7a87b1d25895c205c64e215405edd1ec21779952461c435e",
    "simhash": "1:9711ffd6f15ad871",
    "word_count": 1354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:43.799233+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BECTON and EAGLES concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARY ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. DAVID T. FLAHERTY, Secretary, N. C. Dept. of Human Resources, Respondent-Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThis appeal arises from the superior court\u2019s affirmation of the decision by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) to recover certain AFDC over-payments to petitioner by reducing her monthly AFDC check. The administrative record shows that, over a period of several years, DSS mistakenly overpaid petitioner $852 in AFDC benefits. In exercising its statutory authority to recoup such overpayments, DSS included certain utility allowances (hereinafter, \u201cSection 8 utility allowances\u201d) as income in computing the monthly amount DSS was authorized to withhold. See 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1437f (West 1978 & 1988 Cum. Supp.) (authorizing utility allowances under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937); 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602 et seq. (West 1983 & 1988 Cum. Supp.) (hereafter sometimes called \u201cSection 602\u201d).\nIn authorizing DSS to reduce future aid in order to recoup past overpayments, Section 602(a)(22) provides that DSS cannot reduce a monthly AFDC check \u201cwhen added to such family\u2019s liquid resources and its income . . .\u201d to \u201cless than 90 percent of the amount payable under the State plan\u201d for a family of that particular size. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(22) (West 1983) (emphasis added). DSS added petitioner\u2019s $309 AFDC check and petitioner\u2019s $121 Section 8 utility allowance to arrive at a total assessable income of $430 per month. From that total amount of $430, DSS subtracted $278 (90 percent of $309, the AFDC \u201cpayment standard\u201d), leaving $152 that DSS could recoup from petitioner\u2019s monthly AFDC check. Thus, petitioner\u2019s monthly check was reduced from $309 to $152. After a preliminary injunction was issued enjoining DSS from considering such utility allowances in recouping AFDC overpayments, the superior court affirmed the DSS hearing officer\u2019s decision allowing the consideration of such subsidies. Petitioner appeals.\nThe sole issue presented is, given the State\u2019s current AFDC plan for services, whether Section 602(a)(22) permitted DSS to treat Section 8 utility allowances as part of a family\u2019s \u201cliquid resources and income\u201d in computing the monthly amount it could withhold in recouping past AFDC overpayments. In light of the overall structure of Section 602 and the express language of Section 602(22), we hold DSS may not treat Section 8 utility allowances as \u201cliquid resources or income\u201d for recoupment purposes so long as the State AFDC plan does not expressly consider such subsidies as income in determining the recipient\u2019s initial need for aid under Section 602(a)(7)(C)(ii). We therefore reverse the superior court\u2019s judgment.\nThe statutory source of DSS\u2019s obligation to recoup AFDC over-payments is Section 602(a)(22):\n[The State plan shall] provide that the State agency will promptly take all necessary steps to correct any overpayment . . . and, in the case of\u2014\n(A) an overpayment to an individual who is a current recipient of such aid, recovery will be made by repayment by the individual or by reducing the amount of any future aid payable to the family of which he is a member, except that such recovery shall not result in the reduction of aid payable for any month, such that the aid, when added to such family\u2019s liquid resources and to its income (without application of paragraph (8)), is less than 90 percent of the amount payable under the State plan to a family of the same composition with no other income . . .\n42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(22) (West 1983 & 1988 Cum. Supp.) (emphasis added). In enacting Section 602(a)(22), Congress has balanced petitioner\u2019s need for an adequate monthly income with the government\u2019s need to recoup overpayments by permitting DSS to assess petitioner\u2019s income without excluding certain income sources (listed in Section 602(a)(8)) which are otherwise disregarded in computing petitioner\u2019s income. Section 8 utility allowances are nowhere listed as a proper \u201cdisregard\u201d under Section 602(a)(8). Since there are thus no sources of income added by excluding Section 602(a)(8), the permitted sources of assessable income for recoupment purposes are in this case controlled by the general income provisions set forth in Section 602(a)(7). See Smith v. Powell, 293 N.C. 342, 345, 238 S.E. 2d 137, 140 (1977) (unless context clearly requires otherwise, statutory definition of' term employed wherever such term appears). Sub-section (C) of Section 602(a)(7) states:\n[The State agency] may, in the case of a family claiming or receiving aid under this part for any month, take into consideration as income (to the extent the State determines appropriate, as specified in such plan, and notwithstanding any other provision of law) . . . (ii) an amount not to exceed the value of any rent or housing subsidy provided to such family, to the extent such value duplicates the amount for housing included in the maximum amount that would be payable under the State plan to a family of the same composition with no other income.\n42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(7)(C)(ii) (West 1983) (emphasis added). In this case, Section 8 utility allowances may not be considered under Section 602(a)(7)(C)(ii) since DSS admits that the State plan nowhere expressly specifies consideration of such subsidies as \u201cincome\u201d in determining a recipient\u2019s need for aid. Thus, we conclude under these facts that DSS is accordingly not authorized to consider Section 8 utility allowances in computing the amount it may recoup from monthly AFDC checks under Section 602(a)(22).\nWe also note that, even if the State plan had permitted consideration of such allowances, Section 602(a)(7)(C)(ii) limits the amount of such subsidy considered to \u201can amount not to exceed the value of any rent or housing subsidy provided ... to the extent such value duplicates the amount for housing included in the maximum amount that would be payable under the State plan to a family of the same composition with no other income 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(7)(C)(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, even if Section 8 utility allowances were considered under the current State plan, the record does not show DSS considered the limits provided in Section 602(a)(7)(C)(ii).\nWe reject DSS\u2019s reliance on a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court holding the definition of \u201cincome\u201d used in computing a recipient\u2019s initial need for aid did not necessarily define the scope of \u201cincome\u201d subject to recoupment. Steere v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 308 Minn. 390, 243 N.W. 2d 112 (1976). The Steere analysis represents that court\u2019s attempt to balance the recipient\u2019s need for an adequate income against the State\u2019s need to recoup over-payments; however, Steere was decided before Congress enacted the mandatory statutory recoupment scheme set forth in Section 602(a)(22). Therefore, the legislative balancing of interests evidenced by Section 602(a)(22) and related provisions has supplanted any contrary judicial scheme.\nAccordingly, we hold that DSS exceeded its statutory authority in considering Section 8 utility allowances for purposes of recouping AFDC overpayments under Section 602(a)(22). We thus reverse the judgment of the superior court affirming DSS\u2019s consideration of petitioner\u2019s Section 8 utility allowances for recoupment purposes and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges BECTON and EAGLES concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Central Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Martha K. Walston, for the respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. DAVID T. FLAHERTY, Secretary, N. C. Dept. of Human Resources, Respondent-Appellee\nNo. 8818SC488\n(Filed 4 April 1989)\nSocial Security and Public Welfare \u00a7 2\u2014 recoupment of past AFDC overpayments \u2014 utility allowances not considered\nThe DSS may not treat Section 8 utility allowances as part of a family\u2019s \u201cliquid resources and income\u201d in computing the amount it can withhold from monthly AFDC checks in recouping past AFDC overpayments under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(22) so long as the State AFDC plan does not expressly consider such allowances as income in determining the recipient family\u2019s initial need for aid under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 602(a)(7)(C)(ii).\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Beaty (James A., Jr.), Judge. Order entered 12 February 1988 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 November 1988.\nCentral Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Martha K. Walston, for the respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 349,
  "last_page_order": 353
}