Summary
In Essex Cty. Welfare Bd. v. Hellams, 103 N.J. Super. 438 (App.Div. 1968), we affirmed a denial of assistance reimbursement from the proceeds of an infant's personal injury claim solely on the ground that the welfare board had not obtained a written promise to repay, from the funds anticipated, the amount of assistance to be granted.
Summary of this case from In re DoughtyOpinion
Argued October 28, 1968 —
Decided November 8, 1968.
Appeal from Essex County Court, Probate Division
Before Judges SULLIVAN, FOLEY and LEWIS.
Mr. Felix A. Martino argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. John A. Matthews, Jr., attorney).
Mr. Eldridge Hawkins argued the cause for respondent ( Annamay T. Sheppard, of counsel).
The trial court, in an opinion reported at 98 N.J. Super. 181 ( Cty. Ct. 1967), held that the Essex County Welfare Board was not entitled to repayment of welfare funds advanced for the support of the infant defendant herein out of a trust fund bank account representing the net proceeds of the settlement of a personal injury claim of said infant.
We affirm, but solely on the ground that the Welfare Board did not obtain a written promise to repay, from the funds anticipated, the amount of assistance to be granted. N.J.S.A. 44:10-4; see Francis v. Harris, 100 N.J. Super. 313 ( Law Div. 1968), affirmed 103 N.J. Super. 440 ( App. Div. 1968). The provisions of N.J.S.A. 44:7-19 authorizing the Welfare Board to bring appropriate action to recover moneys due for assistance given any person, insofar as assistance given a dependent child is concerned, must be read with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 44:10-4, supra.
"All other income and resources of the dependent child" shall be taken into consideration by the Welfare Board in determining the child's need for financial assistance. N.J.S.A. 44:10-3(c). However, repayment of assistance granted to a needy dependent child, from funds received by the child, shall be had in accordance with N.J.S.A. 44:10-4.
Affirmed.