SSR 70-30: SECTION 204(d)(7). -- UNDERPAYMENT -- LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE -- ORDER GRANTED UNDER "SMALL ESTATE" STATUTE OF STATE OTHER THAN STATE OF DOMICILE OF DECEDENT AT TIME OF DEATH

20 CFR 404.503

SSR 70-30

G, a retirement insurance beneficiary under title II of the Social

Security Act, died domiciled in Texas. Social Security benefits were due

him at the time of his death. Pursuant to section 204 of the Act, the

amount unpaid became an underpayment. He was not survived by a widow,

children, or parents. His estate was not formally administered. A request

for payment of the underpayment as the "legal representative" of G's

estate pursuant to section 204(d)(7) of the Act was filed by L, a sister

of the decedent living in Arizona. She submitted an order of an Arizona

court, issued pursuant to the Arizona "small estate" statute (section

14-501), Arizona Revised Statutes), which purported to authorize her to

receive the underpayment of social security benefits.

Section 204(d) of the Social Security Act provides that amounts due a

deceased beneficiary under the retirement, survivors, and disability

insurance programs will be paid to individuals according to the following

order of priority: The deceased beneficiary's (1) spouse either living in

the same household at the time of his death, or entitled to a monthly

benefit on the same earnings record as the deceased for the month of his

death; (2) child or children entitled to a monthly benefit on the same

earnings record as the deceased for the month of his death; (3) parent or

parents entitled to a monthly benefit on the same earnings record as the

deceased for the month of his death; (4) spouse not falling within the

provisions of (1) above; (5) child or children not falling within the

provisions of (2) above; or (6) parent or parents not falling within the

provisions of (3) above. If no person exists who meets the requirements of

f his death; (3) parent or

parents entitled to a monthly benefit on the same earnings record as the

deceased for the month of his death; (4) spouse not falling within the

provisions of (1) above; (5) child or children not falling within the

provisions of (2) above; or (6) parent or parents not falling within the

provisions of (3) above. If no person exists who meets the requirements of

(1) - (6) above, payment will be made to the "legal representative" of the

estate of the deceased beneficiary.

Thus, at issue here is whether L, the sister of the decedent qualifies as

the "legal representative" of the decedent's estate within the meaning of

section 204(d)(7) of the Social Security Act. It has been held that

for purposes of administration of a decedent's estate, the "situs" of a

claim by his estate against the United States will be the State of his

last domicile. In re Noyes' Estate 182 Oreg. 1, 195 P.2d 555

(1947); also, Wyman v. United States ex rel. Halstead, 109

U.S. 654, 3 S.Ct. 417 (1884); King v. United States, 27

Ct.Cl. 529 (1892); In re Coit's Estate, 3 App. D.C. 246 (1894). It

is also a general principle of law that the legal requirements of the

State of an individual's domicile at the time of his death control the

administration of his estate therein, 33 C.J.S. Executors and

Administrators, 18; 3 Beale, The Conflict of Laws, section

467.1 (1935). Under these rules it is proper for the Social Security

Administration to pay monies owing a decedent to the individual who, under

the law of the State of the decedent's domicile, has authority to collect

the assets of the decedent's estate. Such payment would legally discharge

the Government's liability for payment. Wyman v. United States

ex rel. Halstead, supra; In re Coit's Estate, supra.

er these rules it is proper for the Social Security

Administration to pay monies owing a decedent to the individual who, under

the law of the State of the decedent's domicile, has authority to collect

the assets of the decedent's estate. Such payment would legally discharge

the Government's liability for payment. Wyman v. United States

ex rel. Halstead, supra; In re Coit's Estate, supra.

In this case, claimant's authority to collect the assets of the

decedent's estate was not under the law of Texas, where the beneficiary

died domiciled, but under the law of Arizona. Under these circumstances,

payment to her of the underpayment would give the Administration good

acquittance.

Accordingly, it is held, L does not qualify as the "legal

representative" of G's estate within the meaning of section 204(d)(7) of

the Act and thus may not be paid the underpayment which arose as a result

of G's death.