Koniak v. Koniak
| Citation | 123 Conn. 338,195 A. 189 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1937 |
| Parties | KONIAK v. KONIAK. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Rufus Booth Judge.
Action for support by Mary Koniak against Stephen Koniak brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Error judgment directed for defendant.
William F. Healey, of Derby, for appellant.
Howard Daniel Olderman, of Ansonia, for appellee.
Argued before, MALTBIE, C.J., and AVERY, BROWN, HINMAN, and JENNINGS, JJ.
Section 1717 of the General Statutes provides that, ‘ When any person shall become poor and unable to support himself or herself and family, and shall have a husband or wife, father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, children or grandchildren who are able to provide such support, it shall be provided by them’ and that if they shall neglect to provide it they may be compelled to do so in an action brought by ‘ the state agent, the selectmen of the town, the husband or wife or any of such relatives or the conservator of such poor person,’ to the Superior Court ‘ of the county in which such poor person resides.’ This action was brought October 22, 1936, by the plaintiff against her husband, under that statute, the complaint alleging that she is poor and unable to support herself, that the defendant has neglected for a long time to provide support for her, and that he has income and property and is able to support her.
Facts are found which support the conclusion that the defendant is financially able to provide such support and has neglected to do so; the questions upon this appeal relate to the further essential conclusion, and the finding of facts subordinate thereto, that the plaintiff ‘ is poor and unable to support herself.’ The finding includes that on January 10, 1934, the plaintiff gave her daughter Anna Zobrowski joint control of a savings bank account previously standing in the plaintiff's name, and on October 29, 1934, transferred it to the daughter's name solely, and that before the bringing of this action the daughter withdrew the entire deposit from one bank and deposited it in her name in another; that prior to this withdrawal the account amounted to $1,815.99, but that $600 thereof consisted of proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of another daughter of the plaintiff who had deceased, which sum belonged to Anna Zobrowski who had paid the premiums, but that the balance-$1,215.99-‘ while now standing in the name of Anna Zobrowski in fact is held by her in trust for the plaintiff and belongs to the plaintiff’ and constitutes her entire estate.
The appellant seeks corrections to the effect that the entire amount of the deposit-$1,815.99-is the property of the plaintiff, but this change, if made, would not alter the result as to the issue determinative of the appeal, nor would elimination of the finding that the plaintiff is in poor health and unable to work, which is attacked as without support from evidence. If, as is the principal claim of the appellant, a person having financial resources of her own which are available for her support is not ‘ poor and unable to support herself’ within the meaning of section 1717 of the General Statutes, disqualification to recover under the statute would result by reason of a bank account of $1,200 as well as from one of $1,800, and irrespective of competence to earn support for herself by personal services. The crucial question is one of statutory construction.
In 1699 the selectmen of towns were directed to make necessary provision for idiots and lunatics who were incapable of providing for themselves. 4 Col. Rec. p. 285. In 1715 it was provided that relatives, within the degrees named, of ‘ such poor, impotent persons,’ being of sufficient ability, The statute continued substantially in that form to and in the Revision of 1808 (p. 382). There and previously it was carried under the general title ‘ Idiots' and entitled, ‘ An Act for relieving and ordering of Idiots, impotent, distracted, and idle persons.’ In the Revision of 1821 it was transferred to the title ‘ Paupers' (p. 369) and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial