Britton v. Steinberg

Decision Date10 October 1962
Citation208 Cal.App.2d 358,24 Cal.Rptr. 831
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesBess BRITTON, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Tillie Steinberg, an Incompetent Person, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Morris STEINBERG, also known as Jack Shandler, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 26000.

Burris & Lagerloff, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Jerry Giesler and Lewis W. Boies, Jr., Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and respondent.

JEFFERSON, Justice.

Plaintiff, as guardian of the person and estate of her mother, Tillie Steinberg, brought an action against her two brothers to compel them to pay for the support of their mother. An order was directed to defendant, one of the brothers, ordering him to appear and show cause why he should not pay attorney's fees, costs and a reasonable sum for support and maintenance of Tillie Steinberg during the pendency of the action.

At the hearing plaintiff testified: Her mother has lived with plaintiff and her husband for more than forty years. During that time she has been the mother's sole support. Now, having reached the age of 86 years, her mother has become more difficult to care for and needs to be placed in a home for elderly persons. After investigating the cost of placing her mother in such a home, plaintiff found the cost would be between $375 and $400 per month.

On cross-examination plaintiff testified that she and her husband have a net income of approximately $400 per month.

Defendant was called as a witness by plaintiff and testified that he receives a pension payment of $198 per month, rental income of about $4,000 annually and payments of approximately $3,000 per month on a trust deed which will continue for another 95 months.

Under examination by his own counsel defendant offered testimony tending to show that during his minority he had been abandoned by his mother, and at the conclusion of the testimony defendant moved to dismiss the order to show cause on that ground pursuant to Section 206.5, Civil Code. The court denied the motion and no issue with respect thereto is made on appeal.

The trial court entered an order directing defendant to pay plaintiff for the support of Tillie Steinberg the sum of $100 per month pending trial of the action. The order also directed defendant to pay $200 for attorney's fees and $25 for court costs. This is an appeal from the court's order.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the award made by this order does not come within the provisions of section 206 of the Civil Code which creates the legal duty of a child to support his parents. Defendant relies upon the following language in Duffy v. Yordi, 149 Cal. 140, 84 P. 838, 4 L.R.A.,N.S., 1159: 'A mother being supported by one child cannot maintain an action against another child for another (sic) support.' (page 143, 84 P. page 839)

In the Duffy case an elderly mother was being supported by some of her children who were financially able to provide the necessary care. The court held that,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Prairie Lakes Health Care System, Inc. v. Wookey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 19, 1998
    ...635 A.2d 1145, 1154 (R.I.1994); Gluckman v. Gaines, 266 Cal.App.2d 52, 71 Cal.Rptr. 795, 797 (1968); Britton v. Steinberg, 208 Cal.App.2d 358, 24 Cal.Rptr. 831, 832 (1962); Commonwealth v. Goldman, 180 Pa.Super. 337, 119 A.2d 631, 632 (1956); Thornsberry v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welf......
  • Swoap v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 12, 1973
    ...v. Curry (1924) 69 Cal.App. 501, 507, 231 P. 358)), (2) the total wealth of all the parent's children (see Britton v. Steinberg (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 358, 24 Cal.Rptr. 831), and (3) whether the parent, by ill treatment of the child, has lost his right to demand full support from his child. ......
  • Carleson v. Superior Court for Sacramento County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 10, 1972
    ...Yordi (1906) 149 Cal. 140, 142, 84 P. 838; Radich v. Kruly (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 683, 686, 38 Cal.Rptr. 340; Britton v. Steinberg (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 358, 360, 24 Cal.Rptr. 831; Woolams v. Woolams (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, 251 P.2d 392; see also, Ten Broek, California's Dual System of F......
  • Dudley, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 1966
    ...718 fn. 4, 36 Cal.Rptr. 488, 388 P.2d 720; Woolams v. Woolams, supra, 115 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, 251 P.2d 392; and Britton v. Steinberg (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 358, 360, 24 Cal.Rptr. 831.) They are the law of this state and have not as yet been declared Respon- dent insists that the principle of se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT