Case Name: Slapin v. Slapin
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-10-22
Citations: 7 Ohio Misc. 127
Docket Number: No. 16102
Parties: Slapin v. Slapin.
Judges: Before Wbick, Chief Judge, Edwabds, Circuit Judge, and Mathes, Senior District Judge. (William C. Mathes, Senior District Judge of the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.)
Reporter: Ohio Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 127–129

Head Matter:
Slapin v. Slapin.
(No. 16102
Decided October 22, 1965.)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Mr. Thomas A. Conroy, for appellants.
Mr. Joseph A. Brant, for appellee.
Before Wbick, Chief Judge, Edwabds, Circuit Judge, and Mathes, Senior District Judge. (William C. Mathes, Senior District Judge of the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from a judgment dismissing an action commenced in the District Court by a brother and sister to recover from another brother his alleged proportionate share of the cost of providing care, maintenance and support for their indigent, infirm mother.
Federal jurisdiction of this case is asserted because of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs are citizens of New Jersey and defendant is a citizen of the state of Ohio. The sum involved is over $10,000.
Plaintiff appellants claim their cause of action finds support in Ohio statutes and case law and that the action is one of quasi-contract. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the cost of the mother's care over the past 20 years aggregates in excess of $60,000. The relief sought is for judgment for a sum certain — $20,000—alleged to be defendant's share of the amount expended for the care of their mother.
Upon motion of the defendant brother, the learned District Judge, in a well-reasoned opinion, dismissed the action on the merits for failure to state a claim upon which any relief could be granted under Ohio law [Fed. Enles Civ. Proc. 12(b) (6)], bolding that "there is no civil liability in Ohio for failure to support one's destitute parents."
This appears to be a correct statement of the law of Ohio.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.