Department of Mental Hygiene v. Shane

• Citation: 142 Cal.App.2d Supp. 881,299 P.2d 747
• Court: California Superior Court
• Decision Date: 05 July 1956
• Parties: 142 Cal.App.2d Supp. 881 DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bessie SHANE, Executrix of the Estate of William Henry Waller, also known as W. H. Waller, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent. C. A. 39. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Kern County, California

Page 747

299 P.2d 747

142 Cal.App.2d Supp. 881

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bessie SHANE, Executrix of the Estate of William Henry Waller, also known as W. H. Waller, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent.

C. A. 39.

Appellate Department, Superior Court, Kern County, California.

July 5, 1956.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Ariel C. Hilton, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

John B. Young, Bakersfield, for defendant and respondent.

LAMBERT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Department of Mental Hygiene of the State of California, from judgment entered in the Municipal Court in favor of the defendant in an action by the plaintiff against the executrix of the estate of the deceased father on his alleged statutory liability for the care, support and maintenance of his son committed to a state mental hospital. The facts are not in dispute and they show that the complaint was filed on March 7, 1955, and alleged that on December 4, 1952, Lee Henry Waller was adjudged insane by this court and committed to the Mendocine State Hospital and ever since has been a patient there. That William Henry Waller, who died September 5, 1954, was the father of Lee Henry Waller, which facts were admitted by the answer. The complaint further alleged that pursuant to Section 6651 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the rate for the care, support and maintenance of Lee Henry Waller at said hospital was determined by the Director of Mental Hygiene to be $90 a month, effective December 4, 1952, redetermined at $100 a month, effective January 1, 1953, and again redetermined to be $111 a month, effective 1954. That a claim was filed in the estate of the deceased father for $2,184.09 for this care for the period of December 4, 1952, to September 4, 1954, and that said sum was now due and owing from the executrix from the funds of the estate. The answer of the defendant denied the establishment of the rate, admitted the filing of the claim and alleged its rejection October 27, 1954. The indebtedness of the estate to the Department of Mental Hygiene was denied. These facts are taken from the appellant's brief but are in accordance with the record. There was introduced at the trial evidence that the determinations by the Director of Mental Hygiene for the period involved were made as alleged. It was the plaintiff's position that the facts admitted, together with the documents introduced as evidence (plaintiff's exhibits 2, 3, 4) made a case whereby the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment.

The respondent argued that liability of the estate rests upon the ability to pay and he then introduced into evidence the inventory and appraisal of the estate (exhibit B) showing assets of $2,430. The evidence shows that the creditor's claims in the estate were offered as a group amounting to $666.83, exclusive of the rejected claim of the Department of Mental Hygiene. The evidence also showed that payments in wages to the decedent William Henry Waller amounted to $360 in 1953 and in 1954 of $510. There was also a statement from the Social Security Administration that for the period in question, the decedent received social security at the rate of $53.90 per month, and the evidence showed that this was all the income that the decedent had and there was no evidence to show whether the Department of Mental Hygiene had ever made a demand upon the decedent for the support of his son. Inasmuch as the decedent made less than the amount which he owed for 1953-54, that he had therefore no ability to pay.

There is no case law on the subject. The respondent asserts that the appellant cites no cases. It can also be stated that respondent cites no cases that are comparable to this case. Section 6650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code reads as follows:

'The husband, wife, father, mother, or children of a mentally ill person or inebriate, the estates of such persons, and the guardian and administrator of the estate of such mentally ill person or inebriate, shall cause him to be properly and suitably cared for and maintained, and shall pay the costs and charges of his transportation to a state institution for the mentally...