Queens Medical Center v. Kagawa

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii · Family Law

Family Lawspousal liabilitynecessariesmarital supportHRS § 572-24necessariesmedical servicesspousal support

Facts

Husband and Wife were still legally married when Husband was urgently admitted to QMC on June 5, 1991, and he died on June 25, 1991, leaving a hospital debt of $151,870.65. Wife had filed for divorce earlier and both spouses had signed an unfiled agreement incident to divorce providing that each would be responsible for his or her own debts, but no final divorce decree or court support order had been entered. The trial court found the marriage was not viable, the spouses had lived separate lives, and QMC would have treated Husband regardless of marital or insurance status. There was no dispute that Husband's medical services were necessaries incurred during the marriage.

Issue

Whether, under the plain language of HRS § 572-24, a spouse is liable for the other spouse's debt for necessaries incurred while the parties remain legally married, even if divorce proceedings are pending, the marriage is no longer viable, and the provider would have rendered treatment regardless of marital status. A related issue was whether QMC was automatically entitled to the full amount billed.

Rule

Under HRS § 572-24, each spouse is liable for all debts contracted by the other spouse for necessaries during marriage, absent an appropriate court order fixing support or maintenance. The duty of spousal support and corresponding liability for necessaries continues until the marriage is legally dissolved, and courts may not avoid the statute by examining marital viability, separateness of finances, or similar equitable factors not found in the statute. A provider seeking full recovery must still show that the charges claimed were necessary and reasonable.

🔒

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 Honolulu, Maya Chen filed for divorce from her husband, Leo Chen, and the case was pending for three months. Before any decree or temporary support order was entered, Leo underwent emergency surgery at Palisade Bay Medical Group and failed to pay the resulting bill for medically necessary treatment.

Under the governing rule, is Maya liable to the provider for Leo's debt?

Explanation. The majority held that under HRS § 572-24, each spouse is liable for debts the other spouse contracts for necessaries during marriage, absent an appropriate court order fixing support or maintenance. A pending divorce does not terminate the duty; it continues until final dissolution. Personal authorization by the nondebtor spouse is unnecessary because liability is imposed by statute, not agency principles.