Briggs v. Fitzpatrick

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SEBRING; MATHEWS, C. J., TERRELL, J., and KANNER
• Citation: Briggs v. Fitzpatrick, 79 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1955)
• Decision Date: 29 April 1955
• Parties: Helen BRIGGS, joined by her husband, George Briggs, Appellant, v. Edward FITZPATRICK, as Administrator of the Estate of Laura Siler, Deceased, Appellee.

Page 848

79 So.2d 848

Helen BRIGGS, joined by her husband, George Briggs, Appellant, v. Edward FITZPATRICK, as Administrator of the Estate of Laura Siler, Deceased, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division A.

April 29, 1955.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1955.

Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Caidin and P. N. Hiatt, Miami, for appellant.

Robert H. Givens, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

SEBRING, Justice.

The appeal is from an order granting a remittitur of a jury's verdict from $15,000 to $5,000, or, in the alternative, requiring the plaintiff below to submit to a new trial.

Helen Briggs, the plaintiff, joined by her husband, George, prosecuted the action in which the verdict was returned to recover from Edward Fitzpatrick, as administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Laura Siler, deceased, the reasonable value of certain services rendered to the decedent, including nursing care and control and care of the home of the decedent over a period of years before her death. The complaint alleged specifically that the services were performed at the request of the decedent during the periods of time from April, 1938, to February, 1945, from June of 1945 to May of 1946, from November, 1948, to Janary, 1952, and from May, 1952, until the death of her aunt, the decedent, on July 24, 1952; that the decedent 'promised them that they would be paid reasonable compensation for their services and that said monies would be left to the Plaintiff in the Will of the deceased;' and that 'the plaintiff relied upon the promise of the deceased and did perform the work and services as described.'

To this complaint the defendant filed defenses in which he traversed the allegations of the complaint; averred that plaintiff had been paid for the services rendered by being furnished shelter by the decedent during the periods of time specified; and averred that plaintiff's claim for compensation for services rendered prior to February, 1950, were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

At the trial upon these issues, plaintiff's witnesses, friends and neighbors who had stayed or visited in the Siler home during the life of the decedent, testified to the following facts material to the issues: that, having had Helen with her with only occasional interruptions since 1938, Mrs. Siler, while residing in Miami in 1948, specifically requested that Helen sell her home in Ohio and come with her husband and daughter, Linda, to stay and care for her, and stated that 'she would be very well paid if she would come;' that Helen did come and assume the full care of her ailing aunt, buying groceries, cooking meals, bathing and administering medications to Mrs. Siler, and running the household for her and other members of the family residing there; that on many occasions before and after this time Mrs. Siler acknowledged that Helen 'had done so much for her,' and stated repeatedly to others that 'Helen didn't need to be afraid, that she would be taken care of even if she had to wait until her (Mrs. Siler's) death.' During this same period, and continuing until shortly before her death, witnesses also reported Mrs. Siler as saying 'I mean that * * * (Helen) shall be reimbursed for her trouble and her services for me * * * I will see that she's taken care of,' and 'her and Linda is going to get * * * everything * * * when I go.'

The plaintiff stayed continuously in the Siler household until the end of 1951 or early part of 1952, at which time she contracted pneumonia, and because of her illness and some alleged animosity exhibited toward her by her aunt's brother, moved shortly thereafter, for a temporary stay, to a neighbor's and then to a house purchased by her and her husband in another part of the city. Although she worked at another job for a few months after she left the household she, nevertheless, continued to visit and give some help to her aunt, and for at least two months prior to Mrs. Siler's death in July, 1952, resumed full daily care of her aunt, commuting from her own family residence.

Mrs. Siler's will, made a part of the record on this appeal, reflects that plaintiff, under its terms, did not share in the estate in any way, other than by a small bequest to the plaintiff's daughter, Linda, of two rings of the appraised value of $175, and a provision in the will that she and her husband might 'dispose of' certain second-hand furniture in one of Mrs. Siler's properties in Ohio of the appraised value of $272.50. The record also reflects, by testimony and exhibits, that during the period in question Mrs. Siler, at about the same time she drafted her will, executed a deed of her Miami property to the plaintiff, but that at Mrs. Siler's request the property was subsequently reconveyed because of bitter antagonism to the transaction on the part of Mrs. Siler's brother.

Upon this evidence, and contravening evidence offered by the defendant, the trial court charged the jury that the evidence failed to establish an express contract for services up through 1946 and that any recovery for that period would not be warranted; and inasmuch as there has been no objection made to this charge by the plaintiff we need not consider it further.

...