36 N.E.3d 519
Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiff William F. Reade, a retired U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, receives federal VA disability payments and a Massachusetts partial property tax abatement for disabled veterans; neither benefit is means-tested.
- Reade filed a civil action in Superior Court and submitted three affidavits of indigency under G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A–27C seeking waivers of normal and extra court fees and costs.
- The judge denied the waivers after hearings, finding Reade’s income, assets, and household resources showed he was not indigent; the Appeals Court single justice allowed interlocutory appeal on whether receipt of "veterans' benefits" automatically triggers indigency.
- Statutory definition at issue: § 27A defines "indigent" to include persons who receive "public assistance under . . . veterans' benefits programs," income at or below certain poverty thresholds, or who cannot pay fees without depriving themselves/dependents of necessities.
- The Commonwealth argued the statute refers to need‑based benefits (specifically Massachusetts veterans' benefits under G. L. c. 115, § 5), not all veterans' benefits generally; the clerk referred Reade’s third affidavit to a judge because documents attached created a significant question about whether he received the need‑based MA benefit.
- The Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the statutory language in light of legislative history and purpose, concluding the veterans' benefits phrase refers to need‑based Massachusetts programs; Reade does not qualify and the denials were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether receipt of federal VA disability payments or a MA disabled‑veteran property tax abatement qualifies as "public assistance under ... veterans' benefits programs" in § 27A (thus making the recipient indigent) | Reade: plain text includes "veterans' benefits programs," so any veterans' benefits (federal or state) satisfy § 27A and warrant fee waivers | Commonwealth/Intervener: § 27A was meant to refer to specific need‑based programs (MA G. L. c. 115, § 5 and similarly means‑tested federal programs); non‑means‑tested benefits should not trigger indigency | Held: Phrase refers to the need‑based Massachusetts veterans' benefits program (G. L. c. 115, § 5); Reade's federal disability payments and MA tax abatement (not means‑tested) do not make him indigent. |
| Whether the clerk was required to grant the waiver forthwith based on Reade's form selection of "Massachusetts Veterans Benefits" | Reade: form selection and apparent regularity required clerk to grant waiver without judge referral | Commonwealth: clerk may refer affidavits to a judge where there is a significant question about indigency or when extra fees are requested | Held: Clerk properly referred the affidavit to a judge because attachments and prior filings created significant questions about whether Reade received the need‑based MA benefit; referral also appropriate because extra fees were sought. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass'n, 421 Mass. 106 (statutory construction disfavors strictly literal readings that thwart purpose)
- Meunier's Case, 319 Mass. 421 (legislative intent gathered from statutory text and purpose)
- Commonwealth v. De'Amicis, 450 Mass. 271 (interpret indigent court costs statute in light of purpose and history)
- Roe v. Rosencratz, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 901 (prior court filings can justify further consideration/referral on indigency questions)
- Underwood v. Appeals Court, 427 Mass. 1012 (interpretation of indigent court costs statute consistent with access‑to‑courts purpose)
- Edwards, petitioner, 464 Mass. 454 (indigent‑costs statute protects equal access; courts should read statute to effectuate that purpose)
- Franklin Office Park Realty Corp. v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 466 Mass. 454 (words grouped together in a statute must be read in harmony)
- Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676 (statutes read as a whole to produce internal consistency)