Com. of Pa. ex rel. Department of Public Assistance, Mercer County Bd. of Assistance v. Mong, 33584
| Decision Date | 13 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33584,33584 |
| Citation | 117 N.E.2d 32,160 Ohio St. 455 |
| Parties | , 52 O.O. 340 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF ASSISTANCE v. MONG. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a proceeding, initiated in Pennsylvania and certified to Ohio under the provisions of the 'Uniform Dependent's Act', Act No. 50 of 1951 of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 62 P.S. § 2043.1 et seq., Sections 8007-1 to 8007-19, General Code of Ohio, to require a son, who is a citizen and resident of Ohio, to contribute to the support of his father, who is a resident of Pennsylvania, the courts of Ohio will determine the liability of such son for such support in accordance with the law of Ohio and, in so doing, will accord to such son any benefit of Section 12431, General Code, to which he may be entitled.
This cause arose under the so-called Uniform Dependent's Act as embodied in Act No. 50 of 1951 of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 62 P.S. § 2043.1 et seq. and in Sections 8007-1 to 8007-19, inclusive, Ohio General Code, Sections 3115.01 to 3115.15, Revised Code.
On October 27, 1952, the relator initiated this proceeding by filing a complaint in the Court of Quarter Sessions, Mercer county, Pennsylvania, in which it is alleged that the complaint is made on behalf of Lawrence A. Mong of Wheatland, Pennsylvania; that respondent, James Mong, is a legally responsible relative, to wit, a son of Lawrence Mong; and that the respondent is financially able to contribute to his support.
The Pennsylvania court examined said complaint and certified it to the Court of Common Pleas of Huron County, Ohio, which was the alleged place of residence of respondent, together with a certified copy of the 'Uniform Support Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'
After notice was served upon the respondent, a hearing was had in the Common Pleas Court of Huron County and evidence was received as to his ability to contribute to the father's support and as to respondent's claim of exemption from liability to so contribute.
The Common Pleas Court ordered the respondent to pay $21 per month to the clerk for transmission to the probation officer of Mercer county, Pennsylvania, toward the support of his father.
The respondent appealed from that judgment, and the Court of Appeals reversed such judgment on the ground that it 'is contrary to law.'
This court granted relator's motion to certify the record.
Bernard W. Freeman, Pros. Atty., Norwalk, for appellant.
Clifford F. Brown, Norwalk, for appellee.
The 'Uniform Dependent's Act' was enacted by the Ohio General Assembly in 1951 and became Sections 8007-1 to 8007-19, inclusive, General Code. It is substantially identical with Act No. 50 of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, which also became effective in 1951, 62 P.S. § 2043.1 et seq.
Section 2 of the act defines the words and terms used therein, including:
'(5) 'Law' includes both common and statute law.
* * *
* * *
'(7) 'Obligor' means any person owing a duty of support.
'(8) 'Obligee' means any person to whom a duty of support is owed.'
The greater portion of the act is procedural in nature. The question at issue arises under sections 4 and 7 thereof which are as follows:
The laws of Pennsylvania and Ohio differ with respect to the obligation of a son to support his father. Section 12431, General Code of Ohio, Section 2901.42, Revised Code, provides:
'No person shall be required to furnish a parent with shelter, food, care or clothing, if such parent abandoned, deserted or wilfully refused or neglected to support and maintain him while an infant under sixteen years of age.'
There is no such provision in the laws of Pennsylvania. The record discloses without dispute that the respondent while under 16 years of age was abandoned by his father. Under Ohio law the respondent is not obligated to furnish or contribute to the father's support. Inasmuch as the laws of Pennsylvania, if available to the father, would afford him relief not obtainable under the law of Ohio, he elected, under section 7 of the act, to claim the benefits of the Pennsylvania law.
Thus is posed the question at issue: Will the Ohio courts compel respondent to make payments under Pennsylvania law notwithstanding an Ohio statute which specifically relieves him of liability for such payments?
This is a novel question--a normal offspring of novel legislation.
The respondent is a citizen and resident of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Ohio (odhs), ex rel. Scioto County Child Support Enforcement Agency, ex rel., Mildred Walton v. Raymond Adams
...of Public Assistance v. Mong (1954), 160 Ohio St. 455, upon which the appellant relies to justify application of Ohio law in this case. In Mong, the Pennsylvania Department of Assistance filed a complaint in Pennsylvania, under the precursor to URESA, alleging that Mong, an Ohio resident, o......
-
Melmark, Inc. v. Schutt by and Through Schutt
...such liability, would violate their equal protection rights. For support, they reference Pennsylvania, Department of Public Assistance v. Mong , 160 Ohio St. 455, 117 N.E.2d 32 (1954), a dispute in which an indigent father living in Pennsylvania sought support from a son whom he had abandon......
-
Helms v. American Legion, Inc.
...to a difference in elevation between adjacent parts of a municipal sidewalk is found in Harris v. City of Detroit (s962), 367 Mich. 526, 117 N.E.2d 32, where a defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action for damages for injuries received in a fall caused by a one-inch depression in a c......
-
Americana Healthcare Center, a Div. of Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Randall
...argues that SDCL 25-7-27 denies him of the right to due process. In support of his argument, he cites Commonwealth v. Mong, 160 Ohio St. 455, 52 O.O. 340, 117 N.E.2d 32 (1954). Mong involved an Ohio resident who was not held responsible for the support of his father, a Pennsylvania resident......
-
Filial responsibility: breaking the backbone of today's modern long term care system.
...responsibility support orders to the issues faced by interstate enforcement of child support orders). (175.) See Pennsylvania v. Mong, 117 N.E.2d 32, 33-34 (Ohio 1954) (holding that an Ohio abandonment defense prevented a Pennsylvania support order from being applied to a resident of Ohio);......