California Department of Social Services - State Hearings Division
Notes from the Training Bureau - December 15,  1999

Item 99-12-02F
Reissuance of Lost or Destroyed Warrants

Reissuance of Lost or Destroyed Warrants

MPP Handbook §25-330.6 provides that AFDC warrants, which are lost or destroyed, shall be reissued in accordance with California Government Code §§29850 through 29854. Government Code §§29853.5(a) and (b) address the county obligation to replace a lost or destroyed public assistance warrant. Subsection 29853(a) states that to the extent permitted by federal law, if the warrant was lost in the mail, the legal owner or custodian (i.e. the AFDC payee) shall be entitled to file an affidavit of the loss with the county after waiting five days (or less if permitted by the county). If the warrant was not lost in the mail, an affidavit may be filed immediately with the county.

Per §29853.5(b), when the affidavit has been signed by the legal owner or custodian of the warrant, the county shall issue a replacement warrant as soon as possible to ensure that the needs of the family continue to be met, but no later than five days from the date the affidavit was signed and filed with the county.

Notwithstanding Government Code §29853.5, the CDSS policy since at least 1993 has been that even if an AFDC recipient signs an affidavit declaring that a warrant was not received, the county is not required to issue a replacement warrant when it determines that the warrant was not lost in the mail nor destroyed.

In the case of Beverly v. Anderson, the Superior Court ordered Sacramento County to issue a replacement GAIN child care warrant for September 1996 through November 1996 after Ms. Beverly had signed an affidavit declaring she had not received such warrant. The Beverly court order set aside a hearing decision denying Ms. Beverly's claim after the ALJ found that Ms. Beverly had in fact received and endorsed the original warrant despite signing an affidavit declaring she had not received such warrant. The court held that the county had a duty to issue a replacement warrant once Ms. Beverly signed the affidavit, regardless of whether the county determined her affidavit to be false, and that she had received and cashed the original warrant.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld the order of the Superior Court judge and said the CDSS policy contradicts the language and intent of the law. The Court of Appeal decision stated that "The public policy underlying (§29853.5) is to ensure that the needs of public assistance recipients are met without interruption". On behalf of the court, Justice Richard Sims noted that if a further investigation shows that the family had already received the money, the state could deduct the overpayment from future checks and seek criminal prosecution in cases of fraud.

Judges should write proposed decisions on lost or destroyed warrant cases until further notice.