News-Record.com

North Carolina's "Doctrine of Necessaries" can be a Doctrine of Debt for a surviving spouse whose husband or wife died leaving medical bills.

The doctrine was cited today by the N.C. Court of Appeals in favor of the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation.

If you read the case, you might consider divorce before your spouse undertakes any expensive medical procedures.

Moses Cone sued Audrey Hawley to recover money owed by her late husband, Samuel B. Hawley, who died in June 2007. He had been treated at Cone for chronic lymphocytic leukemia following his diagnosis in September 2004.

Guilford County District Court Judge Tom Jarrell in February 2008 granted Cone's request for summary judgment, relying on the Doctrine of Necessaries.

The Court of Appeals today affirmed Jarrell's judgment, noting that the doctrine is "common law established by the Supreme Court of North Carolina."

Basically, it states that "a wife is liable for the necessary medical expenses provided for her husband."

In fact, because the rule is gender-neutral in its application, it holds the husband to the same liability for his wife.

There are only four simple questions used to make the determination of liability, the court said in its opinion authored by judge Jim Wynn and supported by Chief Judge John Martin and Judge Linda Stephens:

"(1) medical services were provided to the spouse;

"(2) the medical services were necessary for the health and well-being of the receiving spouse;

"(3) the person against whom the action is brought was married to the person to whom the medical services were provided at the time such services were provided; and

"(4) the payment for the necessaries has not been made."

Those conditions were met in this case.

There aren't many details in the opinion. It doesn't say how much money was at stake here. I'd assume it wasn't a little.

It does note that this was the second marriage for both Mr. and Mrs. Hawley. She stated he retained some residual debt and a poor credit rating from his prior marriage while she managed her finances very well. The implication is that they kept separate accounts, probably a good idea.

Evidently, however, that didn't provide Mrs. Hawley with enough financial protection. During their marriage, his medical bills were her medical bills.

Among other contentions, she argued in court that the Doctrine of Necessaries was contrary to the state's public policy favoring marriage.

As a legal claim, that turned out to be ineffective.

To the extent that she would have been spared an expensive liability if she had chosen to move in with Mr. Hawley but not marry him, she had a point.