Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1955, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1954, No. 4635, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Home for the Jewish Aged v. Julius Kotzker. Order affirmed.
Maurice Freedman, with him Herbert H. Hadra and Robert H. Arronson, for appellant.
Herbert A. Fogel, with him Leon J. Obermayer, and Edmonds, Obermayer & Rebmann, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 523]
This is an appeal by a son from an order requiring him to contribute ten dollars a week toward the support of his parents who are living in and being cared for by the Home for the Jewish Aged in Philadelphia.
In 1948, the parents, Jacob and Mollie Kotzker, were admitted to the Home and have been there ever since, notwithstanding the fact that they have three adult children, two sons and a daughter. During this time, the Home has expended for the support of these two parents $10,600.00 more than it received from social security payments and a five hundred dollar cash payment made by the parents to the Home upon their admission in 1948. Currently, the cost of keeping them runs $260. a month, while the monthly social security payments amount to only $94.20, the difference being made up by the Home from charitable contributions received by it. The family has never contributed toward this expense. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Assistance has indicated that it will contribute toward their support, but only after the Home has established the obligation of the children, the exact amount which the State will give depending upon the contributions of the children. Consequently, the Home filed a petition in the court below to compel Julius Kotzker, defendant-appellant, to contribute toward the support of his parents under the provisions of the Act of June 24, 1937, P.L. 2045, Sec. 3, as amended by the Act of May 23, 1945, P.L. 864, Sec. 1 et seq., 62 P.S. Pocket Suppl., sec. 1973.*fn1
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 524]
No answer was filed to the petition and a hearing was held below on the sole question of the amount of the support, the hearing being very brief (11 printed pages), after which the court entered an order of ten dollars a week. Defendant then appealed.
Before us the appellant raises not only the question of the reasonableness of the amount, but three other questions as well. He claims that his parents are not indigent, that the Home is alone contractually bound to support them, and that the Home is not a proper party to bring this support action.
Since no question was raised below concerning the alleged contract of support and the record is completely barren of any such evidence, we could not pass upon it were we so inclined. Accordingly that point is dismissed. Nor did the appellant make any objection to the Home as a moving party prior to this appeal, consequently, this too could be summarily dismissed. Grisbord v. Philadelphia, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 91, 96, 24 A.2d 646.In passing through, we might say that this contention is without merit. The Act specifically provides: "(B) The courts shall have power to hear, determine and make orders and decrees in such cases upon the petition of such indigent person, or of any other person or any public body or public agency having any interest in the care, maintenance or assistance of such indigent person." (italics supplied) Certainly the Home has an interest in the care and maintenance of the elderly Kotzkers for it is the Home which is providing them with their required shelter, sustenance and care. The Act merely requires that the ...