Hulse v. Warren
1989 WL 111464, 777 S.W.2d 319, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1392 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the modern doctrine of necessaries, when spouses have separate assets, the spouse who receives necessary services has the primary obligation to pay for them from their own separate funds. The other spouse has only a secondary obligation, which arises after the receiving spouse's separate assets have been exhausted.
Facts:
- Eula Mae Warren and the defendant married in 1975, both having been previously married with adult children.
- Mrs. Warren possessed approximately $90,000 to $100,000 of her own funds, which she held in certificates of deposit jointly with her daughter, Patt Hulse.
- In December 1984, Mrs. Warren suffered a cerebral hemorrhage that required extensive hospitalization and medical care.
- After a brief attempt at home care in February 1985, Hulse and the defendant agreed that Mrs. Warren required professional care and moved her to a nursing home in Neosho.
- There was testimony that Mrs. Warren, while lucid, instructed her daughter and husband to use her own money for her care, stating, 'Use my money, don’t use O.T.’s money.'
- Hulse subsequently moved Mrs. Warren to a different nursing home in McAlester, Oklahoma, a move the defendant claimed was made without his consent.
- All of Mrs. Warren's care expenses since she entered the nursing home were paid for using her separate funds.
- Hulse, acting individually and as Mrs. Warren's guardian, sought reimbursement from the defendant for over $55,000 that had been expended from Mrs. Warren's funds for her care.
Procedural Posture:
- Patt Hulse, individually and as guardian for Eula Mae Warren, filed a two-count petition against Mrs. Warren's husband in a state trial court, seeking to recover funds spent on Mrs. Warren's care.
- The defendant filed a four-count counterclaim against Hulse.
- Following a nonjury trial, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs' claims.
- The trial court also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on parts of the defendant's counterclaim.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment against their petition to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a husband have a legal duty to pay for his wife's necessary medical and living expenses when the wife has sufficient separate assets of her own to cover those costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Prewitt, P.J.
No, a husband does not have a legal duty to pay for his wife's necessaries when she has sufficient separate assets to cover those costs. The court modified the traditional common law doctrine of necessaries, which held the husband primarily liable for his wife's expenses. Acknowledging the modern trend toward gender neutrality and treating marriage as a financial partnership, the court established that the doctrine should apply to both spouses. Therefore, the spouse who receives the necessaries bears the primary responsibility for payment if they possess separate assets. The other spouse's duty to provide support is secondary and only arises once the receiving spouse's separate assets are depleted. Because Mrs. Warren had substantial separate assets that were being used to pay for her care and were not yet exhausted, her husband had no current obligation to provide support or reimbursement.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant modernization of the common law doctrine of necessaries in Missouri, shifting it from a gender-based rule to a gender-neutral principle grounded in financial capacity. By imposing primary liability on the spouse who incurs the necessary expenses if they have separate assets, the court aligned an archaic doctrine with contemporary views of marriage as an equal partnership. This precedent changes the legal landscape for spousal support, requiring courts to first analyze the separate property of the dependent spouse before imposing a support obligation on the other. It effectively creates a two-tiered liability system, prioritizing individual assets over spousal liability.
