Return to Browsing

3 N.J.A.R. 174

Burlington County Welfare Agency v. G., E
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 3 N.J.A.R. 174
Decision Date: 1982
Synopsis: The Burlington County Welfare Agency sought to terminate re- spondent's AFDC benefits on the grounds that respondent possessed an automobile, the value of which was said to be excessive under N.J.A.C. 10:82-3.1 et seq. as those regulations were amended as a result of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The administrative law judge found that the respondent owned a 1978 automobile with an accumulated mileage of 53,400 miles. On November 9, 1981, the agency advised the respondent that his benefits would be terminated because his automobile was valued at $2,500, a figure in excess of that permitted by N.J.A.C. 10:82-3.2. The respon- dent was not informed of any right or opportunity to liquidate this resource which was allegedly in excess of the permitted value. The respondent himself presented an appraisal of the automobile which valued it at $1,750. Under existing regulations, the administrative law judge deter- mined that a welfare agency must give notice to a welfare recipient that the recipient is required to liquidate an alleged excess resource within a reasonable period of time. This notice must be given prior to an agency's filing a notice of adverse action seeking termination. It is only when the agency has determined that the recipient is not liquidat- ing the asset that the agency should move to terminate the recipient's benefits. Accordingly, the judge concluded that the agency's termina- tion of respondent's benefits had been procedurely improper. In addition, the judge determined that in using the 'Red Book' to value the respondent's auto, the agency had failed to follow the instructions given in the Red Book and thus had failed to consider the present condition of the vehicle in reaching its valuation. Noting that an assessment based on generalized information is no assessment at all, the judge determined that in order to comply with existing federal and state regulations, the local agency must determine more than the auto's make, year and model before making an assessment. State of New Jersey 175 Accordingly, the judge determined that the agency had terminated the respondent's benefits improperly and ordered that the matter be remanded to the agency for re-evaluation of respondent's eligibility based on the judge's decision. Jeffrey David Kotler, Esq. for Petitioner James G. Gavin, Esq. for the Respondent
Rule(s) Cited: 10:81-2.7(d)