Luna v. Carleson

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 1975 No. Civ. 14406Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a successful welfare applicant is entitled to attorney fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962, even if represented by a legal aid society, but is not entitled to interest on retroactive welfare payments in the absence of statutory authorization.

Issues

Whether a successful welfare applicant is entitled to interest on retroactive support payments under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962.
Whether a successful welfare applicant represented by a legal aid society is entitled to an award of attorney fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962.

Disposition. reversed in part and affirmed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of any showing of statutory authorization for the payment of interest, or any legal precedent therefor, we hold that the trial court erred in awarding interest.”

“The judgment is reversed insofar as it awards interest, and is affirmed insofar as it awards attorney fees.”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

On May 3, 1971, Sacramento County proposed to discontinue plaintiff Juana Luna’s aid for dependent children effective May 31, 1971. Plaintiff requested a hearing before a referee of the State Department of Social Welfare. Such hearing took place and the referee’s decision adverse to plaintiff was adopted by the Director of the Department of Social Welfare, defendant herein.

Support payments were discontinued and plaintiff sought judicial review of defendant’s decision in the form of a petition for a writ of mandamus as permitted by Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962. An alternative writ was issued and in a hearing thereon, after some confusion in trial procedures not here pertinent, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered payment of the aid for dependent children payments withheld from December 15, 1972, to February 28, 1973, with interest thereon at 7 percent for said period and attorney fees in the amount of $350. Plaintiff was at all times represented by the Sacramento

[672]

County Legal Aid Society which was fully funded from grants from the United States Office of Economic Opportunity and represented plaintiff without charge as it was required to do. The attorney fees awarded were made payable directly to plaintiff, the court being advised that it was plaintiff’s intention to pay over to the Legal Aid Society any attorney fees received by her.

Defendant does not contest the order of the trial court'insofar as it directs payment of the withheld support payments, but does urge that an award of interest was not authorized and that no legal fees should have been awarded.

We observe that the matter of when a governmental agency becomes liable for the payment of interest is in a somewhat confused state. But we have found no case overruling the general principle as enunciated in

Sanders

City of Los Angeles

(1970) 3 Cal.3d 252, 262 [90 Cal.Rptr. 169, 475 P.2d 201], that: “This [case] is an exception to the general rule that interest cannot be recovered against a state or municipality.”

Luna v. Carleson

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief