Opinion ID: 1913529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Does SDCL 25-7-27 deny Robert Randall his right to due process?

Text: Robert argues that SDCL 25-7-27 denies him of the right to due process. In support of his argument, he cites Commonwealth v. Mong, 160 Ohio St. 455, 52 O.O. 340, 117 N.E.2d 32 (1954). Mong involved an Ohio resident who was not held responsible for the support of his father, a Pennsylvania resident. However, in Mong, the adult child was not liable for his indigent parent because Ohio law prohibited a parent who has abandoned their children to later assert their parental right to support from that child. Id. 117 N.E.2d at 33. Robert, a resident of the District of Columbia, argues that Americana cannot enforce the South Dakota support statute against him because the District of Columbia has repealed its parental support statute. Robert has not been denied due process simply because the District of Columbia does not have a support statute similar to South Dakota's. Unlike the situation in Mong, District of Columbia does not prohibit an action for support of a parent, it has simply repealed the vehicle for such action in the District of Columbia. Robert claims a violation of due process exists because the statute forces a nonresident to pay for a resident parent's expenses. Although Robert is not a resident of South Dakota, he has had numerous contacts with the state. He had a power of attorney pertaining to his mother's checking account in Aberdeen, South Dakota. He later became her legal guardian with her residency in South Dakota. As trustee, he held legal title to a house in South Dakota. He visited his mother on several occasions at Americana in Aberdeen. He also maintained a bankruptcy action in the State of South Dakota as guardian for his mother. With these contacts it is obvious that the South Dakota courts have properly asserted jurisdiction over this matter. Residency or, in this case, the lack thereof does not deprive Robert of due process. Robert also argues that he was denied due process because he was not given notice that his parent is unable to provide for herself as required by SDCL 25-7-27. Where the statute contains a notice provision, failure to provide timely notice precludes any claim against an adult child for support of his parent on a due process basis. Morris County Welfare Bd. v. Gilligan, 130 N.J.L. 83, 31 A.2d 805 (Err. & App.1943); Mallatt v. Luihn, 206 Or. 678, 294 P.2d 871, 877-79 (1956). SDCL 25-7-27 does not specify the manner in which notice shall be given. Therefore, it should be assumed that it must be reasonable notice. This court discussed what was constitutionally required for reasonable notice in First Nat. Bank of Eden v. Meyer, 476 N.W.2d 267, 269 (S.D.1991): In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), the United States Supreme Court in determining what notice is constitutionally adequate to satisfy due process stated: An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. In this case, the evidence indicates that Robert had complete control over his mother's financial affairs. He was notified by Americana on several occasions that his mother's bill remained unpaid. As his mother's guardian, it was Robert's responsibility to provide for his mother's needs including her nursing home bills. Robert's assertion that Americana's notices were given to him only as trustee or guardian and never individually does not withstand scrutiny. Robert had sufficient notice even though Americana did not explicitly state that he was responsible for his mother's expenses. Surely, a sophisticated person such as Robert was aware that his mother's bills were delinquent and Americana was not in the business of providing services free of charge. This court concludes he received constitutionally adequate notice. Robert further argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks specific notice requirements. Statutes are not unconstitutionally vague unless people of common intelligence must guess at their meaning and differ as to their application. State v. Havens, 264 N.W.2d 918 (S.D. 1978). The statutes of [other] states go further and provide a procedure by which such children may be compelled to supply future support. Ours does not. Whether the omission was an oversight or deliberate we do not know. Kammoss, 7 S.D. at 558, 64 N.W. at 1123. Under the circumstances, Americana furnished care to Juanita Randall relying on the representations made by her son, Robert. Therefore, it ought to be able to recover from the child who had control of the purse strings but chose to expend the assets to avoid the bill rather than pay for his mother's required care. Our conclusion is that given its plain and ordinary meaning, this statute is not unconstitutionally vague and was properly applied in this case.