From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welfare Bd.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Dec 12, 1973
126 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

Submitted November 27, 1973 —

Decided December 12, 1973.

Appeal from Superior Court, Law Division

Before Judges CARTON, SEIDMAN and DEMOS.

Mr. John B. Matthews, attorney for appellant.

Mr. Murray J. Klein, of the Camden Regional Legal Services, Inc., attorney for respondents.


Plaintiffs filed a class action in lieu of prerogative writs to restrain defendant from prosecuting suits in the Burlington County District Court against them and others, all of whom are or were recipients of welfare aid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, to recover payments received by them allegedly in excess of amounts authorized by law.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The court below held that defendant welfare board had no authority to seek the recovery of welfare overpayments by a civil action, and that the only procedure authorized by statute or regulation for the recovery of overpayments resulting from fraud or wrongdoing was by criminal sanctions or the reduction or denial of future payments. Judgment was entered directing defendant to dismiss the pending actions and enjoining it from instituting any further civil actions for the recovery of alleged overpayments, except as specifically authorized by statute.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Wood in the court below. 123 N.J. Super. 572 (Law Div. 1973).


Summaries of

Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welfare Bd.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Dec 12, 1973
126 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welfare Bd.

Case Details

Full title:ELIJAH REDDING AND MARGIE JACKSON REDDING, HIS WIFE; AND HATTIE HARRIS…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Dec 12, 1973

Citations

126 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1973)
313 A.2d 221

Citing Cases

State v. Blassingale

We note in passing, although we do not rule thereon, that judgment for the balance of the $1,800 remaining…

Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welf. Bd.

The Appellate Division affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the trial court's opinion. 126 N.J.…