How do I get my money?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? UT
My husband and I took in a nephew in April of 2008. In July of 2008 we became his full legal guardians. We have great insurance and he needed braces. We had them put on along with fixing cavities, wisdom teeth etc. Our portion after insurance was around $3000.00. Our nephew was receiving SSI benefits and we were his representative payee. We would use part of his SSI to pay for his portion of the bill. Recently, he ran away to his mothers house in a different state. He is 17. The SSI is no longer in our name because he physically doesn't live with us. We have asked his mother to send us payments from his SSI to cover his bill and she refuses. We cannot afford to drive to the state where he is at now to make him come back to our house. My question is, how do we get the money from him to pay his dental bills? I understand that he is only 17 so still a minor and you cannot sue a minor. So who can I legally go after for payment?

jen03 said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? UT
My husband and I took in a nephew in April of 2008. In July of 2008 we became his full legal guardians. We have great insurance and he needed braces. We had them put on along with fixing cavities, wisdom teeth etc. Our portion after insurance was around $3000.00. Our nephew was receiving SSI benefits and we were his representative payee. We would use part of his SSI to pay for his portion of the bill. Recently, he ran away to his mothers house in a different state. He is 17. The SSI is no longer in our name because he physically doesn't live with us. We have asked his mother to send us payments from his SSI to cover his bill and she refuses. We cannot afford to drive to the state where he is at now to make him come back to our house. My question is, how do we get the money from him to pay his dental bills? I understand that he is only 17 so still a minor and you cannot sue a minor. So who can I legally go after for payment?

Click to expand...

Sue mom in her jurisdiction.

Wirelessany1 said:

Sue mom in her jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

That’s very easy to say, but . . .

Can you cite any case or statutory law that would sustain an action against the parent for reimbursement of funds “voluntarily” contributed towards the non-emergency necessities of the parent’s minor child without an advance agreement to do so?

Especially when the minor was not under the care of the parent at the time the expenditures were made!

Is the determination by the provider that the expenditures were necessary conclusive?

And under what legal theory could the court order the mother “to send us payments from his SSI”?

It might be nice were the OP to have some competent legal authority in his or her pocket, other than a non-professional’s categorical statement, before incurring the expenses and undergoing the considerable inconvenience of commencing an out-of-state court action.

latigo said:

That’s very easy to say, but . . .

Can you cite any case or statutory law that would sustain an action against the parent for reimbursement of funds “voluntarily” contributed towards the non-emergency necessities of the parent’s minor child without an advance agreement to do so?

Especially when the minor was not under the care of the parent at the time the expenditures were made!

Is the determination by the provider that the expenditures were necessary conclusive?

And under what legal theory could the court order the mother “to send us payments from his SSI”?

It might be nice were the OP to have some competent legal authority in his or her pocket, other than a non-professional’s categorical statement, before incurring the expenses and undergoing the considerable inconvenience of commencing an out-of-state court action.

Click to expand...

I said she could sue, Latigo; I did not say she would prevail. You provide me with case law that says she can't sue.

Incidentally,

Assuming that the OP is entitled to reimbursement from the mother, just how is she or he to go about proving that the expenditures were made, let alone necessary?

For instance, without the dental records, photos, x-rays, etc., and particularly without the expert testimony of the orthodontist?

Yes, it must be quite simple for one to respond with a “sue the mother”, especially from one with a limited understanding of what that entails.

latigo said:

Incidentally,

Assuming that the OP is entitled to reimbursement from the mother, just how is she or he to go about proving that the expenditures were made, let alone necessary?

For instance, without the dental records, photos, x-rays, etc., and particularly without the expert testimony of the orthodontist?

Yes, it must be quite simple for one to respond with a “sue the mother”, especially from one with a limited understanding of what that entails.

Click to expand...

You are way overthinking this. This is the small claims section Latigo. It's not like the OP is going to be filing a motion to appear before the Supreme Court.

We are talking about a $3k expense that the OP incurred. She has the right to ask a judge or a referee (whatever they use in the defendent's jursidiction).

OP ~ You have the right to sue. Just make sure you sue in their jurisdiction. If you win collecting will be fun.

Take care, ana

In reply to your pleasant riposte, I can assure you that I do not need to resort to legal research to refresh my knowledge that a parent’s legal responsibility to provide sustenance, shelter, schooling, medical care, etc., for their minor children WOULD NOT include elective orthodontic work!

Although persons providing services for the benefit of a minor child might have recourse under the theory of UNJUST ENRICHMENT in which the nature of the services IMPLIES A PROMISE OF REIMBURSEMENT, no such implied promise would be judicially imposed with respect to the orthodontics.

That is, unless it could be shown that the orthodontics were necessary to avert “a danger to health of prevent suffering”.

Moreover, THE INTENTION TO CHARGE THE PARENT MUST HAVE EXISTED AT THE TIME THE BENEFITS ARE BESTOWED. See: Restatement of Restitution – Unjust Enrichment - Section 116.

And (analogous in principle) Section 117 of the Restatement of Restitution.

Restatement of Restitution §117 (property - Preservation of Another’s Things or Credit)

(1) A person who, although acting without the other’s knowledge or consent, has preserved things belonging to another from damage or destruction, is entitled to restitution for services rendered or expenditures incurred therein, if

(a) he was in lawful possession or custody of the things or if he lawfully took possession thereof, and the services or expenses were not made necessary by his breach of duty to the other, and

(b) it was reasonably necessary that the services should be rendered or the expenditures incurred before it was possible to communicate with the owner by reasonable means, and

(c) he had no reason to believe that the owner did not desire him so to act, and

(d) he intended to charge for such services ...... and if professional - more likely intent to charge

(e) the things have been accepted by the owner.
_____________________________

So, without the benefit of an implied promise on the part of the mother and no proof that the OP ever intended to charge the parent – it is admitted they were looking to the SSI, in fact that is their current intent – to have the mother deduct from the SSI payments . . .

What is your underlying theory upon which OP is to go to another state and be able to plead a viable cause of action against the mother?

Or, with no indication from you that she will “prevail”, does the OP simply take the risk, come up with the thousands of bucks it will take the orthodontist to close his office, fly to the venue and testify in court?

The OP would be in not better position in that courtroom than would the dentist if he/she were suing the parent for the orthodontic fees.