## Facts

- In 1967, Gordon Peyton (plaintiff) and Randolph Peyton (defendant) were appointed co-guardians of their mother and her property after she was adjudicated incompetent.
- As the mother’s health deteriorated, she required placement in a nursing home.
- For a period of time, Gordon personally paid the nursing-home charges and certain other expenses for his mother’s care.
- Gordon later sued Randolph seeking a judgment requiring Randolph to reimburse Gordon for one-half of the amounts Gordon had expended for their mother’s care.
- Gordon relied on a Virginia statute that requires a child to support a parent who is in “necessitous circumstances,” meaning a state of poverty and immediate financial need.
- Randolph argued he was not liable under the statute because the mother received Social Security benefits and therefore fell within an exception that eliminates the duty of support when the parent is receiving public assistance.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s receipt of Social Security benefits places the parent within the statute’s “public assistance” exception so as to relieve an adult child of a statutory duty to provide support.
2. Whether one co-guardian/child who has paid for an incompetent parent’s nursing-home care may obtain reimbursement from the other co-guardian/child for a proportional share of those expenditures under the statutory support duty.

## Decision

- The court rejected Randolph’s argument that the mother’s receipt of Social Security benefits automatically triggered the statute’s “public assistance” exception.
- The court treated the mother as remaining in “necessitous circumstances” for purposes of the statute notwithstanding Social Security, given the need for nursing-home care and associated expenses.
- The court entered judgment in favor of Gordon requiring Randolph to reimburse Gordon for one-half of the amounts Gordon had paid for the mother’s care.

## Legal Principles

- A Virginia filial-support statute may impose a duty on an adult child to contribute to a parent’s support when the parent is in “necessitous circumstances” (poverty and immediate financial need).
- The existence of some income to the parent (including Social Security) does not by itself defeat a finding of necessitous circumstances if the parent’s reasonable care needs exceed available resources.
- Social Security benefits are not treated as “public assistance” for purposes of invoking a statutory exception that would negate an otherwise applicable filial-support obligation.
- When more than one adult child is subject to the statutory duty and one child pays the parent’s necessary support costs, the paying child may seek proportionate reimbursement from another obligated child.

## Conclusion

*Peyton v. Peyton* involved two brothers serving as co-guardians for their incompetent mother after she required nursing-home placement. After Gordon paid nursing-home and related expenses, he sued Randolph for reimbursement of half the expenditures under Virginia’s filial-support statute. Randolph argued that Social Security benefits placed the mother within a “public assistance” exception, but the court disagreed, found the mother’s circumstances still required support within the statute’s meaning, and ordered Randolph to reimburse Gordon for one-half of the amounts Gordon had paid.


Peyton v. Peyton, 8 Va. Cir. 531 (1978)