Connor v. SOUTHWEST FLA. REGIONAL MED. CTR.
668 So. 2d 175 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of necessaries, which holds a husband liable for his wife's necessary expenses but not vice versa, is unconstitutional under equal protection principles and is therefore abrogated in Florida. A spouse is not liable for the other's necessaries solely based on marital status.
Facts:
- Kenneth Connor received medical services from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center.
- As a result of these services, Kenneth Connor incurred a debt to the hospital.
- Barbara Connor was married to Kenneth Connor at the time he received the medical services.
- Barbara Connor did not execute an agreement or otherwise contractually obligate herself to pay for the medical services rendered to her husband.
Procedural Posture:
- Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center sued Kenneth Connor and Barbara Connor in a Florida trial court to recover payment for Kenneth's medical services.
- The trial court granted Barbara Connor's motion to dismiss the complaint against her, ruling she was not responsible for her husband's medical bills.
- Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the doctrine of necessaries should be expanded to make wives liable for their husbands' necessaries.
- The appellate court then certified a conflict with decisions from other Florida appellate districts, prompting the Supreme Court of Florida to accept the case for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a wife liable for the necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the common law doctrine of necessaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, C.J.
No. A wife is not liable for the necessary medical expenses of her husband because the common law doctrine of necessaries is abrogated. The doctrine was created to mitigate the effects of coverture, a legal disability that prevented married women from owning property or entering contracts. Since coverture has been abolished and legal equality between the sexes is a constitutional requirement, the gender-based doctrine is an anachronism that violates equal protection. While some courts have judicially expanded the doctrine to apply to both spouses, there is a lack of consensus on this approach, and it involves broad social policy implications best addressed by the legislature. Therefore, the proper judicial remedy is to abrogate the doctrine entirely, leaving the legislature to determine state policy on spousal liability for necessaries.
Dissenting - Overton, J.
Yes. A wife should be held liable for her husband's necessaries because the doctrine should be extended to apply to both spouses rather than abrogated. The doctrine remains vital to protect and enforce the moral and legal obligations of the marital partnership. Abrogating the doctrine weakens the institution of marriage and places Florida in the minority of states that have addressed this issue; most have chosen to modernize the rule to apply equally to both spouses. The doctrine was a judicial creation, and it is the court's responsibility to modify its own common law to conform to constitutional requirements like equal protection, rather than shifting that duty to the legislature. The court should have extended the doctrine, imposing primary liability on the spouse who incurred the debt and secondary liability on the other.
Analysis:
This decision eliminates a centuries-old common law rule and fundamentally alters spousal liability in Florida. By abrogating the doctrine of necessaries rather than extending it, the court established a clear rule that marriage alone does not create financial liability for a spouse's necessary debts. The ruling shifts the responsibility for creating any such obligation from the courts to the legislature, reflecting a stance of judicial restraint on a matter with significant social and economic policy implications. This places the burden on creditors, such as hospitals, to secure contractual agreements from both spouses if they wish to hold both liable for services rendered to one.
Unlock the full brief for Connor v. SOUTHWEST FLA. REGIONAL MED. CTR.