St. Catherine Hospital v. Alvarez
383 P.3d 184
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Ovidio and Bianca Alvarez married in 1995, separated in Nov. 2012 when Ovidio moved out, and divorced in Oct. 2014.
- On Feb. 23, 2014, Ovidio was seriously injured in a car crash and treated at St. Catherine Hospital; the $6,456 bill went unpaid.
- St. Catherine sued Bianca under the doctrine of necessaries because she was married to Ovidio when he received treatment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the hospital; Bianca appealed.
- The hospital relied on Kansas precedent requiring, among other elements when spouses are separated, proof that the creditor originally extended credit based on the absent spouse’s credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bianca is liable under the doctrine of necessaries for Ovidio’s unpaid hospital bill | Hospital: doctrine applies; prior dealings with family permitted treating on wife’s apparent agency/credit | Bianca: hospital failed to prove required elements for applying the doctrine after separation, including reliance on her or husband’s credit | Reversed summary judgment; hospital failed to show it extended credit based on husband’s creditworthiness as required when spouses are separated |
| Whether prior dealings with family relieved hospital of proving justification for holding spouse liable after separation | Hospital: prior treatment and records listing Bianca as wife allowed relying on her as agent and on husband’s credit | Bianca: prior dealings do not eliminate the separate requirement that creditor show it gave credit originally to the husband | Court: prior dealings only relate to the fourth Harttmann element (notice/justification); they do not satisfy the separate requirement that credit was given on husband’s credit |
| Whether modern changes (no-fault divorce) eliminate Harttmann’s fault/justification requirements | Hospital: state’s move to no-fault divorce undermines Harttmann’s distinctions based on fault | Bianca: (implicit) historical elements remain applicable to creditor-versus-spouse actions | Court: no-fault divorce does not automatically eliminate Harttmann rules for third-party creditor suits; Harttmann elements remain controlling here |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate without hospital proving all Harttmann elements | Hospital: met burden for summary judgment | Bianca: lack of evidence on key element (credit relied on husband) precludes judgment against her | Court: summary judgment improper because hospital did not present evidence that it relied on husband’s credit; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Harttmann v. Tegart, 12 Kan. 177 (1873) (establishes elements for applying doctrine of necessaries, including that creditor must generally have given credit to the husband when spouses are separated)
- St. Francis Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Bowles, 251 Kan. 334 (1992) (applies equal protection to make the doctrine reciprocal so spouses of either sex may be held liable for necessaries)