Sonneman v. Tuszynski

• Decision Date: 25 July 1939
• Citation: 191 So. 18,139 Fla. 824
• Parties: SONNEMAN v. TUSZYNSKI et ux.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

191 So. 18

139 Fla. 824

SONNEMAN v. TUSZYNSKI et ux.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 25, 1939

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1939.

Suit by Mrs. Matilda Sonneman against William Tuszynski and wife Mrs. William Tuszynski, to recover amount allegedly due to plaintiff and to have a lien therefor decree against certain realty, or, if an accounting could not be decreed, then to obtain a decree fixing an amount which William Tuszynski should be required to pay monthly to plaintiff for her support and for necessities according to his ability, and that those monthly amounts be declared a lien on certain realty. From an order dismissing the bill of complaint, the plaintiff appeals.

Order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L L. Parks, judge.

COUNSEL

Mabry Reaves, Carlton & White, of Tampa, for appellant.

J. Polk Ikard and O. P. Hilburn, both of Tampa, for appellees.

OPINION

CHAPMAN Justice.

The record in this case shows that the plaintiff below, during the year 1924, was 65 years of age and was then engaged in operating a boarding house located in Brooklyn, New York when the defendant below, William Tuszynski, obtained board and lodging with her. Plaintiff was a German by birth and came to this country in 1896, subsequently married, and two sons were born to the marriage, but died. She and husband separated during the year 1902. She had no relatives and few friends in America. The defendant by birth was Polish and came to America in 1921, and was 27 years of age at the time he became a boarder and obtained lodging with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, according to the record, was energetic and thrifty and had obtained employment as a domestic servant shortly after coming to America. She operated a boarding house and rooming place for several years prior to 1931, and the defendant remained or made his home with her. Bonds of friendship sprang up between the two, and some of the witnesses referred to the relationship as 'mother and son', when the defendant on numberous occasions expressed a desire or willingness to take care of the plaintiff during the remainder of her life.

The defendant, during the year 1929 or 1930, purchased some lots situated on Long Island and he desired to improve the same by erecting a cottage thereon where the two could occupy the same and the plaintiff could give up or discontinue her boarding house and then devote her entire time as housekeeper for the defendant. The parties having agreed so to do, the boarding house was discontinued by the plaintiff, and the construction of the cottage begun. Plaintiff advanced money, so she testified, to complete the cottage, but this was denied by the defendant when on the witness stand. The property later was condemned in a legal proceeding and the State of New York paid therefor to the defendant the sum of $3,500 or $4,000, the money paid therefor being delivered to the defendant.

In January, 1932, the defendant, assisted by the plaintiff, bought a filling station at Bayshore, New York, and the price paid for the same was the sum of $1,000 when the defendant immediately undertook the operation of the same, which began during January, 1932, and ended in October, 1933. There were living quarters on the property where the plaintiff and defendant lived and assistants were hired incident to the operation of the station. The plaintiff kept house, cooked and laundered for the defendant, as well as the helpers employed at the station. The filling station under their management proved to be a profitable business, as it is shown that the defendant took therefrom from January, 1932, to October, 1933, between $4,000 and $5,000 as profits. He then sold the station for $3,500. The plaintiff, from time to time when necessary, advanced money to assist or help the defendant in supplying goods and merchandise in operating the business. The record here shows that the defendant received between $12,000 and $13,000 from the years 1929 to October, 1933, during the entire time the plaintiff kept house, cooked, laundered, and advanced money to the defendant when necessary or the business required it. She at no time demanded money or compensation for her labor or services while with the defendant, according to her testimony, but when necessary or the business or circumstances required it, advanced money to the defendant, always relying upon their contract or agreement to the effect that the defendant would take care of her as long as she lived. After the sale of the filling station, the parties in the late Fall of 1933 moved to Fort Myers, Florida.

The defendant, in January, 1934, bought a tourist camp near Tampa and paid therefor the sum of $10,000. He took over the operation of same of February 1, 1934, and was assisted by the plaintiff in the care of guests at the camp, and she continued her usual work as cook, housekeeper and laundress for the defendant. The evidence shows when necessary she scrubbed and cleaned the cottages at the tourist camp, and planted shrubbery and flowers about the place, thereby adding to its beauty and attractiveness. The defendant met a young lady guest at the camp, and, following a short courship, in October, 1934, married her. The defendant brought his wife to the camp to make her future home and immediately trouble arose between the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant, and he at once espoused the part of the wife as against the plaintiff, and the result thereof, after some delays, is the suit at bar. The plaintiff was forced by the conduct of the defendants to leave the camp at a time when she was 78 years of age, penniless, with no relatives or friends, and in need of the common necessities.

The conclusion is inescapable when reading the record that the plaintiff advanced money to the defendant from time to time for a long time discharged duties as housekeeper and performed for the defendant other domestic services, with the expectation that the defendant would observe and fully perform his agreement or contract to support and maintain her the remainder of her life, which he refuses to do and forced the plaintiff to leave the tourist camp.

The prayer of the bill asks for relief, viz.: (a) That the court decree the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff and that a lien therefor be decreed against the lands and improvements described in the bill of complaint; (b) if an accounting cannot be decreed, then a decree be entered fixing an amount which the defendant would be required to pay monthly to the defendant for her support and necessities according to his ability to provide; (c) that the monthly amounts the court decrees defendant to pay plaintiff for her support and maintenance shall be a lien upon the lands and improvements. From an order dismissing the bill of complaint an appeal has been perfected to this Court.

In the case of Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87 the facts were: The parties were husband and wife and had cohabited together for a number of years and during this period the wife not only contributed funds, but performed labor for a long time and in this manner assisted her husband in acquiring a home and property, and the acquisition of his fortune. The court held that her contributions of money and her industry and labor over the years given to her husband gave her a...