Kirk v. Wiggin

242 So. 2d 725, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5483
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 5, 1971
DocketNo. 70-311
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 So. 2d 725 (Kirk v. Wiggin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kirk v. Wiggin, 242 So. 2d 725, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

The appellants seek review of a final order dismissing their complaint with prejudice. The action sought to claim care and maintenance charges against the appellees, pursuant to § 394.22(13), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Appellee Mae Wiggin was committed to the State hospital on March 31, 1936, pursuant to a lunacy decree which ordered her guardianship estate to pay $10.00 per month toward her care and maintenance. Said amount has been paid and is still being paid. Effective August 1, 1955, the State Legislature enacted § 394.22(13), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., permitting reasonable charges on expenses for care of incompetents to be charged against an incompetent’s estate. Pursuant to § 394.22(13), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the appellants filed the instant suit seeking to charge Mae Wig-gin’s estate for the reasonable charges for her care from August 1, 1955 to date of the suit. The appellees answered and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. After hearing, the trial court found the statute upon which the complaint was based was not in effect when Mae Wiggin was admitted to the hospital and, therefore, is not applicable. Based on that finding, the trial court entered the order appealed herein.

At the time the incompetent was committed, there was no statute providing that the State could recover reasonable costs for care and maintenance. Without such being in effect on the date of the adjudication of incompetency, there is no cause of action by the State pursuant to a statute enacted after the party [who is committed] whose estate is to be charged was declared incompetent. See: Heidt v. Caldwell, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 303; Warren v. Pope, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 564; Warren v. Rhea, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 567.

Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harrell v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services
272 So. 2d 151 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Harrell
258 So. 2d 340 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 So. 2d 725, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-v-wiggin-fladistctapp-1971.