Cheshire Medical Center v. Holbrook

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Family Law

Family LawDoctrine of NecessariesEqual ProtectionSpousal SupportMedical Expensesnecessariesspousal liabilitymedical expenses

Facts

Rachel and Robert Holbrook were married and lived together when Cheshire Medical Center provided medical services to Mrs. Holbrook. The medical center billed her $7,080.40, but she later became incarcerated and could not pay the full amount, offering instead to pay ten dollars per month until her release and then make larger payments if able. Unsatisfied, the medical center filed a petition to attach real property owned by Mr. Holbrook. The husband then challenged the continuing validity of the common law doctrine of necessaries.

Issue

Whether New Hampshire's common law doctrine of necessaries, which traditionally made only a husband liable for necessary medical services furnished to his wife, violates equal protection, and if so whether the doctrine should be abolished or revised. The court also considered whether liability for such expenses is primary or secondary between spouses.

Rule

A common law rule that allocates benefits or burdens on the basis of gender must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest under Part I, Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The doctrine of necessaries may be retained only in gender-neutral form: a husband or wife is not liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by the other spouse unless the spouse who received the services has insufficient resources to satisfy the debt, and the recipient spouse is primarily liable while the other spouse is secondarily liable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Concord, New Hampshire, Pine Valley Hospital provided emergency surgery to Elena Cruz, who is married to Martin Cruz. Elena has $40,000 in a savings account, but the hospital sues Martin alone for the unpaid bill without first billing Elena.

Under the revised doctrine of necessaries, which result is most likely?

Explanation. The majority held that the spouse who received the necessary medical services is primarily liable, and the other spouse is only secondarily liable. A provider must first seek payment from the recipient spouse, and the nonrecipient spouse is not liable unless the recipient spouse's resources are insufficient to satisfy the debt. Here, Elena both received the services and has sufficient resources, so suing Martin alone should fail. (Derived from Cheshire Medical Center v. Holbrook (n.d.).)