Common-Law Doctrine of Necessaries
In North Ottawa Community Hospital v Barbara Kieft, ___ Mich ___ (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court abrogated the common-law doctrine of necessaries and held that neither a husband nor a wife is liable, absent express agreement, for necessaries supplied to the other. The Michigan Court of Appeals had previously held in Borgess Medical Center v Smith, 149 Mich App 796 (1986), and Bronson Methodist Hospital v LaRoy, 171 Mich App 729 (1988), that a spouse, solely by virtue of being married, was liable to third parties for necessaries of the other, including medical expenses. The Michigan Supreme Court overruled those cases, reasoning that a wife's liability for her husband's expenses was barred by the Married Woman's Property Act, that the Act was constitutional, and that it would violate equal protection to hold husbands liable for such expenses of their wives and not hold wives liable for such expenses of their husbands. The Court determined that the common-law necessaries doctrine violates equal protection principles and that the appropriate remedy for this unconstitutionality is to abrogate the doctrine in its entirety, thus holding that neither husband nor wife is liable, absent express agreement, for necessaries supplied to the other.
This opinion can be found online at http://www.michbar.org/opinions/supreme/1998/051998/Kieft.html
print this page
