Opinion
File No. 26308
The statute (§ 17-82k) which prohibits the alienation of public assistance aid must be construed to exclude from prejudgment attachment the funds of a welfare recipient held by her attorney.
Memorandum filed March 1, 1976
Memorandum on plaintiff's application for prejudgment remedy. Application denied.
Kalenak Axelrod, for the plaintiff.
Martin Zeldis, for the defendant.
The plaintiff is about to commence an action against the defendant and seeks a prejudgment remedy by way of garnishing funds of the defendant in the hands of her attorney. The defendant is a welfare recipient and objects to the granting of the prejudgment remedy, alleging that those funds are still welfare funds and are not attachable under the provisions of § 17-82k of the General Statutes.
The issue appears to be one of first impression in Connecticut. Other jurisdictions have previously ruled that funds of a welfare recipient deposited in a bank account were not subject to attachment. MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151; Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis, 112 N.J. Super. 44, 46. The reasoning in those cases was that a contrary holding would frustrate the intent of aid to dependent children programs and would allow public funds to be utilized for the benefit of unintended beneficiaries.
Funds of a welfare recipient placed in a client's fund account of her own attorney would appear to be in a stronger position than a bank account insofar as being protected from attachment under the provisions of § 17-82k. The court finds that those funds are still public aid funds of a welfare recipient being held by her attorney and are not subject to attachment.