Southern New Hampshire Medical Center v. Hayes

992 A.2d 596 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Anthony and Karen married in 1977. In July, August, October and November 2006, Karen, who did not have health insurance, received emergency medical treatment at P for complications stemming from alcoholism, leaving a balance due of $85,238.88. D contends that he and Karen 'did not live as husband and wife for the past seven to eight years ... when [the medical bills] were... incurred.' P filed suit against Ds, and successfully sought a real estate attachment on two unencumbered parcels owned jointly by Ds. When P placed an attachment on the properties, Karen and Anthony were still married. The Hayeses were divorced in January 2007 pursuant to a stipulated agreement. Under the terms of the divorce, each party was responsible for his or her own medical expenses not covered by insurance. Karen received one automobile valued at $1,200, her bank account with a balance of $0.00, and all of her debts. Anthony received the marital properties subject to P's attachment. P moved in limine to prohibit D 'from introducing at trial any information, documentation or witnesses concerning or in any way referencing an alleged common law doctrine of elopement.' The trial court granted P's motion. It ruled that elopement is an affirmative defense, but that D failed to properly raise it. The trial court granted summary judgment against Karen, finding 'no issue of material fact' that she was liable for the balance owed to P. The trial court, however, denied P's motion for summary judgment against D, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained with respect to his liability for Karen's medical expenses. After a bench trial, the trial court found that D was liable, under the doctrine of necessaries. D appealed.