Court Opinion

ID: 9696633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:53:24.292971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:24.519767
License: Public Domain

Hallows, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree that “due regard” for “future maintenance” requires this court as a matter of law to create an exemption of social-security benefits and state employees’ retirement funds for the purpose of determining under sec. 52.01, Stats., the ability of a parent, spouse, or child, of a dependent person to maintain such person. Neither does the laudable purpose of the social legislation, the Social Security Act, or the Wisconsin retirement fund require such a construction. It was customary before we had governmental assistance, prenatal to postmortem, for families to take care of themselves. As parents took care of their children in youth and beyond, children aided and assisted their parents in old age and in many cases caring for them in their homes. With the advent of social legislation, the moral responsibility for the care of the aged was replaced by what was once scorned as public charity but now eagerly sought as government assistance.
Sec. 52.01, Stats., requires a parent, spouse, and child of a dependent person to maintain such dependent person to *391the extent the parent, spouse, and child is able to do so and the law has been held to be constitutional Hansis v. Brougham (1960), 10 Wis. (2d) 629, 103 N. W. (2d) 679. The section is an attempt to charge back legally, in whole or in part, the governmental expense of the care of such dependent person to the individual or individuals who in good conscience ought to pay it to the extent of their ability to pay. This law became necessary because of the selfishness of human nature and its alacrity to allow and demand that the government perform the responsibilities and duties of individuals. When one has abandoned his parent, spouse, or child to the care of the government he should pay for such care to the extent of his ability and not shift that burden to other taxpayers. It was not without purpose and insight that the late President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address said, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
This case recalls Longfellow’s ballad, The Bell of Atri, a story of a large bell which the King had hung in the marketplace of the village of Atri and which “whenever wrong was done to any man he should but ring” and the King would cause the Syndic to decide. A knight whose “only passion was the love of gold” turned out his faithful steed in its old age to “feed upon the public ways.” The horse rang the bell and at a public trial of the knight, much to the pleasure and approval of the townspeople, the Syndic read the proclamation of the King:
“He who serves well and speaks not, merits more Than they who clamor loudest at the door. Therefore the law decrees that as this steed Served you in youth, henceforth you shall take heed To comfort his old age, and to provide Shelter in stall, and food and field beside.”
In this case we are dealing with a daughter’s legal duty to pay “so far as able” for the governmental assistance *392given to her aged mother. Sufficient ability to pay under sec. 52.01, Stats., is a question of fact. Here, the daughter is the joint owner of a substantial equity in a home, has an interest in the estate of her sister, and is adequately supported and maintained by her husband who has the duty and the ability to do so. In addition, the daughter has an income of $110.24 per month which is not shown to be needed for her current or future maintenance. On this showing, the trial court in giving “due regard” to the circumstances of the daughter decided she had sufficient ability to pay $30 a month towards the $119 per month cost of caring for her mother in a nursing home.
I think the trial court’s determination was warranted by the evidence and would affirm the order.
I am authorized to state Mr. Justice Beilfuss concurs in this dissenting opinion.