Department of Mental Hygiene v. Bank of America

• Decision Date: 16 January 1970
• Citation: 3 Cal.App.3d 949,83 Cal.Rptr. 559
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.T. & S.A., Executor of the Estate of Herbert J. Kramer, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 26510.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 559

83 Cal.Rptr. 559

3 Cal.App.3d 949

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.T. & S.A., Executor of the Estate of Herbert J. Kramer, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 26510.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 16, 1970.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 13, 1970.

Hearing Denied March 11, 1970.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for appellant.

Aiken, Kramer & Cummings, Oakland, Hill, Janssen, Corbett & Dunaway, Eureka, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Associate Justice.

The Department of Mental Hygiene (hereafter department) appeals from an adverse judgment in this action against the Bank of America (hereafter bank) as executor of the Estate of Herbert J. Kramer, to recover a sum of money due fot the care, support and maintenance of his adult daughter, Elizabeth, a mentally ill person, in certain state institutions. The only question on appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that under Depart. of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner, 60 Cal.2d 716, 36 Cal.Rptr. 488, 388 P.2d 720, 20 A.L.R.3d 353, as clarified 62 Cal.2d 586, 43 Cal.Rptr. 329, 400 P.2d 321 the liability imposed on a relative by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6650 cannot be constitutionally imposed on the estate of the adult patient's father.

The appeal is on the following stipulation of facts: The deceased, Herbert J. Kramer, was the father of Elizabeth Kramer, a mentally ill adult person. In February 1952, on the petition of the Health Officer of the City of Livermore, Elizabeth was committed to Agnews State Hospital. In July 1955, Elizabeth was transferred to Mendocino State Hospital and has remained a patient there since that date. Elizabeth is without means to pay all or any part of the reasonable charge for her care and maintenance in these state institutions. Her father died in December 1966, leaving a net probate estate, over which he had a power of testamentary disposition, of about $200,000. The department filed a verified creditor's claim, which was rejected. Thereafter, the department filed this action for $11,847.32 for the care and maintenance of Elizabeth from February 1, 1964, to December 1966, at the above mentioned state institutions for the treatment of mentally ill persons. This action by stipulation is based solely on Welfare and Institutions Code section 6650.

Section 6650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, at the time the instant action was filed (Feb.1968), provided: '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 ill person or inebriates. The husband, wife, father, mother, or children of a mentally ill person or inebriate, and the administrators of their estates, and the estate of such mentally ill person or inebriate, shall be liable for his care, support, and maintenance in a state institution of which he is A patient. The liability of such persons and estates shall be a joint and several liability, and such liability shall exist whether the mentally ill person or inebriate has become A patient of a state institution pursuant to the provisions of this code or pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1026, 1368, 1369, 1370, and 1372 of the Penal Code.' (Itatics added.)

This statute, as it read prior to the 1965 amendment (explained in the footnote below) ¹ was interpreted in Kirchner, supra, opinion clarified 62 Cal.2d 586, 43 Cal.Rptr. 329, 400 P.2d 321. In Kirchner, our Supreme Court held that article I, sections 11 and 21 ² of the state Constitution were violated by the imposition of liability pursuant to Ewlfare and Institutions Code section 6650 on the estate of the deceased daughter for the care, support and maintenance of the decedent's mentally ill mother, who was in a state institution. The major distinctions between the facts of Kirchner and those of the instant case are: first, in Kirchner, the patient was the parent of the decedent whose estate was sought to be charged, whereas, in the instant case, the patient is the daughter of the decedent; and second, in Kirchner, the patient had funds of her own, whereas, in the instant case, it is stipulated that she does not.

In Kirchner, supra, the Supreme Court indicated that its prior decision in Department of Mental Hygiene v. Hawley, 59 Cal.2d 247, 28 Cal.Rptr. 718, 379 P.2d 22, was dispositive of the question presented. Hawley, like the instant case, involved an assertion by the department of the liability of a father for the care, support and maintenance of an adult son committed to a state institution as insane and unable to stand trial for an alleged crime. There is no indication in the facts recited in Hawley that the adult son had any funds of his own. Significantly, Kirchner found the court's reasoning in Hawley dispositive, regardless of whether or not a patient had funds of his own. Accordingly, this fact alone cannot be relied upon by the department to distinguish the instant case from Kirchner.

Kirchner also distinguished and overruled the court's prior decision in Department of Mental Hygiene v. McGilvery, 50 Cal.2d 742, 329 P.2d 689. In that case, the facts were essentially identical to the facts in the instant case, namely, the estate of the deceased parent had funds to pay the charges for the care and maintenance of an adult child. Further, in Kirchner, the court said 60 Cal.2d at page 721, 36 Cal.Rptr. at page 491, 388 P.2d at page 723: 'It is established in this state that the mere presence of wealth or lack thereof in an individual citizen cannot be the basis for valid class discrimination,' and concluded at page 722, 36 Cal.Rptr. at page 492, 388 P.2d at page 724: 'Section 6650 by its terms imposes absolute liability upon, and does not even purport to vest in, the servient relatives any right of control over, or to recoup from, the assets of the patient. A statute obviously violates the equal protection clause if it selects one particular class of persons for a species of taxation and no rational basis supports such classification. (Citations.) Such a concept for the state's taking of a free man's property manifestly denies him equal protection of the law.'

In clarifying the Kirchner decision, pursuant to the remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, our Supreme Court re-examined and affirmed its earlier opinion, which indicated that it was based, at least in part, on sections 11 and 12 of article I of the state Constitution. The second opinion further indicated that the California Supreme Court would reach exactly the same result under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains language substantially identical to section 21 of article I of the state Constitution. The court said 62 Cal.2d at page 588, 43 Cal.Rptr. at page 330, 400 P.2d at page 322: 'These provisions of our state Constitution have been generally thought in California to be substantially the equivalent of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While it is our view that we should reach the same conclusion under the Fourteenth Amendment we were (and we are) in any event independently constrained to the result we reached by sections 11 and 21, article I, of the California Constitution. We so conclude by our construction and application of California law, regardless of whether there is or is not compulsion to the same end by the federal Constitution.'

The department argues that the cases decided since Kirchner, all of which upheld the liability of a relative, necessarily negate the applicability of Kirchner to the instant case. We cannot agree. Only two of the subsequent cases, Department of Mental Hygiene v. Kolts, 247 Cal.App.2d 154, 55 Cal.Rptr. 437, and Department of Mental Hygiene v. O'Connor, 246 Cal.App.2d 24, 54 Cal.Rptr. 432, involved Welfare and Institutions Code section 6650. In both Kolts and O'Connor, the patients were the spouses of the persons against whom liability was asserted. This is a situation that the court had expressly excepted from its original reasoning in Kirchner by distinguishing ...