Martin on Social Security

Part 2 – Topics

General Family Benefit Issues

§ K 100. Determining Which State’s Law to Apply

On family relationship questions bearing on survivors benefits, the Act refers to the law of the state in which the insured was domiciled (the insured’s permanent residence) at the time of his death.  For family benefits claimed while the insured is still alive, the reference is to the law of the state in which the insured worker is domiciled at the time of application (the family member’s application not that of the insured).  If the insured’s domicile is outside the United States and is not the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or American Samoa, the relevant “state law” specified by the Social Security Act is that of the District of Columbia.

The dependence of these benefits on state law results in a lack of national uniformity.  A person may qualify as a spouse of the insured worker because of the fortuity that one state’s law applies rather than another’s.  A child may be eligible for benefits on the account of a deceased caretaker in one state because of its recognition of the doctrine of “equitable adoption” while the same child would be ineligible in states that follow a more rigid rule.

Since the Act’s reference is to the law which the courts of the relevant state would apply, it is generally held that if, under conflicts of law principles applied by those state courts, they would, in a particular case, determine marital status or status for intestate devolution of personal property by reference to the law of another jurisdiction, that reference carries over to these Social Security determinations.  Take, for example, a state that, like most, does not recognize the establishment of a marriage without a license and religious or civil ceremony, but which would, nonetheless, for many purposes including intestate devolution of personal property recognize the validity of a “common law” marriage between a man and woman who had met the criteria for validity in another state while domiciled there.  Under those same circumstances, the “common law” marriage in the other state can be the basis for Social Security spouse benefits.  Determining children’s status under state intestacy law can lead to the same sort of reference.

[Supporting and Elaborating References] [Related Sections: Part 1 - Part 2]

§ K 200. When State Law Has Changed, What Law Applies

When state law has been amended, deciding whether the law prior to or after the amendment applies can be critical to a family benefit claim.  The Act refers to state law in effect at the time of the worker’s death in the case of survivors benefits, or at the time of application in other cases.  Changes in the law occurring after that point do not, under the Agency’s view of the statute, have any effect.  Some courts have, however, interpreted the Act’s reference as incorporating liberalizing changes in state law that take place after the insured’s death but before the Agency’s determination of a survivor’s claim.

Many of the key changes in state law during the past decades were the consequence of constitutional challenges to the former provisions.  Under these circumstances the earlier law–the apparent reference for Social Security benefits–may be invalid.

In 1967, in Loving v. Commonwealth, 388 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court declared that state statutes that failed to recognize otherwise valid marriages as legal solely on grounds of racial classification were unconstitutional.  The Agency promptly recognized that a marriage between a Caucasian and an Indian which a South Carolina antimiscegenation law declared “utterly null and void” would, nonetheless, qualify for Social Security benefits.

A decade later, in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), the Supreme Court held that state intestate succession laws that discriminate against children born out of marriage violate the equal protection clause.  Subsequent claims by children seeking Social Security benefits challenged by incorporation the constitutionality of state intestate succession law treatment of “illegitimates.”  They argued essentially that while state courts had not yet followed Trimble they would be obliged to, or alternatively, that the incorporation of unconstitutional discrimination into a federal benefit program would itself deny due process.

In KY, MI, OH, and TN, an acquiescence ruling (AR 96-1) implements the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in DeSonier v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990) that the Agency must apply changes in state intestacy law in the same manner as state courts would even when that means applying the law of intestate succession in effect at the time of a benefit determination rather than at the time of the worker’s death.

Rev. 9/96

[Supporting and Elaborating References] [Related Sections: Part 1 - Part 2]

§ K 300. The Effect of Actual State Court Proceedings

Since the Act’s reference to state law is to the law that the courts of the relevant state would apply, it invites attention to judicial decisions of that state.  However, the Act does not lay down clear principles regarding the nature of the effect individual decisions should have on Social Security determinations.  The reference to courts also encourages attention to rules of evidence and defenses that would affect the application of state domestic relations rules in particular cases.  If state law requires a clear statement of mutual intent to create a common law marriage, but also recognizes a rebuttable presumption of such a statement upon proof of cohabitation and “holding out,” that presumption figures in the Social Security eligibility determination.  If a state would hold an individual estopped or barred by laches from challenging the validity of a marriage, those defenses may apply as well in the Social Security benefit context.  However, since neither Social Security benefits nor the Agency will have been involved in those analogous state law settings, such arguments have also been called into question.

Presumptions figure prominently in cases involving competing spouse claimants.  If both spouses can establish a formally sufficient marriage, the issue will often reduce to whether the first marriage had been dissolved before the second was entered into.  If it was not, the first spouse is the legal spouse.  Under the law of most states, however, a presumption in favor of the validity of the later of two marriages by the same person assists the second spouse claimant.  Where state law creates this presumption, state  decisions concerning the evidence the first “spouse” must produce to overcome the presumption also carry over to Social Security.

The reference in the Social Security Act to state law carries an added element of difficulty when there has been a legal proceeding which adjudicated some of the key Social Security issues, but without the participation of all the affected parties.  When state law has already been applied by a state judge on an issue bearing on the Social Security claim a question concerning the effect of that determination on the claim can arise.  This can occur in countless ways.  The state court order can be a divorce decree, annulment of a marriage or a divorce, paternity action, or order of probate.

Since family relationship claims rest on what a state court would decide, if the past adjudication would be binding on a state proceeding it is normally followed.  When, for example, a court has determined a child’s status in the course of a contested divorce proceeding and that determination would be followed by state courts in disposing of inheritance the determination will be followed by a Federal court dealing with a Social Security claim.

Proceedings that lack personal jurisdiction over adversely affected family members do not, of course, have any more binding effect under Social Security law than they do under state law.

[Supporting and Elaborating References] [Related Sections: Part 1 - Part 2]

§ K 400. Consequences of Survivor’s Conviction of Murder

A long-standing regulation bars payment of survivors benefits to a person convicted of murdering the insured worker.  The regulation frames the prohibition in terms of a conviction of a felony (or the equivalent) for intentionally causing the insured’s death.  Juvenile proceedings that yield a similar finding are covered.

This ground for denying benefits is distinct from the suspension of benefits during incarceration to those convicted of any felony.  It applies only to this one crime and is not tied to imprisonment but follows directly and permanently from conviction.

[Supporting and Elaborating References] [Related Sections: Part 1 - Part 2]

§ K 500. Lump Sum Death Benefits

A lump sum death benefit of $255 is paid to the surviving spouse of a deceased worker.  The benefit is available even if the worker was only currently insured.  It is paid to a surviving spouse who was living with the insured at the time of death.  If no one meets that test, it is paid to an eligible surviving spouse who was not living with the insured.  If no eligible spouse applies, the benefit is divided among eligible children.

[Supporting and Elaborating References] [Related Sections: Part 1 - Part 2]