Is a husband responsible for his wife's medical bills?
Sara Brown
seperated. They live in different states. The woman has a medical
emergency (Chest pains) and goes to the hospital overnight. The woman
is at the moment without medical insurance. Would the husband in any
way be required to pay the medical bills she ran up?
Barry Gold
I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. If you want legal advice,
hire a lawyer and pay for it.
As a general rule, no. The rules may vary a bit from state to state,
but most of the time a husband is not legally responsible for his wife's
debts.
A few exceptions come to mind:
1. If he owes her money, her creditors can (eventually) take over that
debt and come after him. This usually would involve her going bankrupt,
or if she dies her estate would collect the debt on behalf of the creditors.
1a: this also applies if he is in arrears in court-ordered spousal
support, or (e.g.) there is a court-ordered (or out-of-court settlement)
property settlement that he hasn't paid off.
2. In community property states, the money each spouse earned during
the marriage belongs to the community -- that is, jointly to the husband
and wife. (This can be modified by a pre-nuptial agreement, or even a
post-nuptial one -- my wife and I signed one about a year after we got
married.) As an example, let's say that during the course of your
marriage, the husband earned $500,000 ($50,000 a year for 10 years) and
that during that time he saved up $20,000 and made payments of $70,000
toward the house that they lived in and that he now owns. In the
absence of an agreement to the contrary, half of that $20,000 savings
account, and up to $35,000 of the equity in your house (but probably not
more than half the equity) would be considered "hers" and could be
attached by her creditors -- including hospital and medical bills.
In general, if this is a real situation and not hypothetical, I would
_strongly_ advise you to see a lawyer. There are sometimes things that
can be done to protect some of your assets.
Also note that, even though you may not be legally obligated to pay your
wife's debts, collection agencies can and often will try to browbeat you
into paying. When that happens, you should look up the Fair Debt
Collection Act. Google for FDCPA. Here's one link:
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FDCPA.shtml#805
In particular, note section 805(c) "Ceasing Communication"
What that means is that you can tell them, in writing, to stop bothering
you and they must, except to
1. Tell you they're giving up
2. Tell you about the remedies they may have (e.g., lawsuit)
3. Tell you that they intend to use a particular remedy (e.g.,
"We're going to sue if you don't pay")
The hard part is getting an address to send the notice to. You have to
notify them in writing, so telling them "stop calling me" just doesn't
do it.
One option is to ask for an address to send a check (but _be careful_
not to promise that you will actually pay a particular amount or that
you owe them anything). Then you send the "cease communications" letter
to that address.
And, again, if contacted by such a collection agency, you should check
with a lawyer if you haven't already seen one.
Your best bet is to ask your personal lawyer -- the one you see to make
out wills and other routine matters -- to recommend a specialist in
family law. If you don't have a family lawyer (or a lawyer you see for
ordinary business things, if you're running a small business), then ask
your friends, relatives, and co-workers or business associates for the
names and addresses their lawyers. Contact those and ask for a
recommendation. If the same name shows up from several different
sources, that is the one you should contact.
Call and ask how much he will charge for the initial consultation, then
make an appointment. Discuss the details with him. Do _not_ discuss
details here or in any other public forum. The lawyers working for the
hospital and doctors are not stupid and know how to use search engines.
Mike Jacobs
Let me break your question down into two -- no, three -- parts, and
then answer each one separately.
First question: is it the case that the spouse ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE,
and REGARDLESS of any extenuating ciccumstances, INEVITABLY is going
to be held responsible for the other spouse's medical bills?
Answer: no. Not if you put it that way. Never say "always".
There's always an exception. Well, at least most of the time there
is (oops, I said "always" didn't I? DIdn't mean that....)
Etcetera, etcetera.
First-and-a-half question (flip side of #1): is it the case that the
spouse is NEvER, under ANY extenuating ciccumstances, EVER going to be
held responsible for the other spouse's medical bills?
Answer: no, again. Not if you put it that way. Never say "never".
There's never a guaranteed free ride; the unexpected or unlikely is
still _possible_. Well, at least most of the time there isn't a
guarantee (oops, I said "never" didn't I? DIdn't mean that....)
Etcetera, etcetera.
Second question: In YOUR particular circumstances, including knowledge
of WHAT two states' laws are involved (you didn't tell us), WHAT the
parties' written separation agreement provides (if there was one),
what OTHER papers one or the other party may have signed (insurance
papers, hospital papers, etc.) in which they agree to be responsible
for each other's medical bills, and any other relevant facts, does
THIS woman's husband have any responsibility for HER medical bills?
Answer: Insufficient information. Or, "it depends."
Certainly one thing that separated spouses can do PRO-ACTIVELY to help
LESSEN (but not completely eliminate) the possibility that they will
unexpectedly be held responsible for each other's medical bills
incurred after separation would be to include such a clause in their
written separation agreement. Another thing they could do is to
PUBLISH a "notice to creditors" in the legal columns of the local
newspaper used for official notices, to the effect that "Effective
1-2-03, I am no longer responsible for any person's debts but my own"
or some such -- surely you've seen such notices from time to time (if
you ever look at the legal-notices section of your local paper, that
is). It also wouldn't hurt to have a thorough review of all
insurance beneficiary designations, family coverage provisions, etc.
with your insurance agent and/or your employer's HR rep to make sure
you are not paying for (or offering benefits to) an estranged spouse
that you no longer want to (and have not been legally ordered to)
support in that way.
It also matters how the question arises, and which party's viewpoint
you are asking from. If you're the party in the hospital, I presume
you want to inquire about any possible ways you can get your ex to pay
your bills. If you're the ex whose spouse is hospitalized, you may
not even know about it until someone contacts you asking you to pay,
and at that point I presume you would want to seek legal professional
advice tailored to your SPECIFIC circumstances which might help you
answer that demand in an appropriate way, consistent with your actual
legal obligations and your best interests.
Sorry, that's about all I can say about it, even if you did tell us
more of the circumstances. If in doubt, it behooves you to consult
an actual local lawyer, and provide all your relevant facts as well as
answers to his specific questions, if you want him to be able to give
advice you can take to the bank and rely upon. Everything else you
might get here is just speculation, or public discussion based on
guesswork.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
slide
A court order defines the obligations of each party in a legal
separation. So the answer is: it depends on the terms of the separation
as outlined in that court order.
JSmith
> But "common law marriage" doesn't exist any
> longer (with the possible exception of Pennsylvania, but I think it's
> now gone from there too).
Note that this is an international forum, and U.S. != World. "Common
law marriage" does exist in other parts of the world.
Larry
>
> A complicating factor in your hypo is that you said the couple is
> "legally separated". First, I don't know what you mean by that term
>The term
> "legally separated" doesn't have any *legal* meaning.
IANAL. "legally separated" Is common in California, pending
divorce. It is an interim pleading which can occur with the initial
filing. A separation decree from the court can cover anything and
everything that can be addressed in a final settlement (including
nearly automatic restraining orders). The date is what is important.
It takes 6 mos. IIRC to finalize a divorce in CA. The statutory
waiting period.
Many people could quit and not follow through. Others might modify
the separation terms in the final settlement agreement; even though it
might take years.
The separation agreement provides a date certain from which to base
the various confiscatory $ calculations in a community property state.
There could be welfare and other entitlement program reasons for a
separation which might also make sense.
If I remember correctly, simply filing a divorce in CA does not change
any of the spousal responsibility to one another...they are still
married pending a final decree. Getting a separation ruling at least
places the clock in a better place. A separation agreement can set
other, interim, terms and conditions that the spouses agree upon.
That is not to say that the couple can't place the clock at any time
they choose in the final agreement thus avoiding the need for extra
rulings and feeling rushed to judgement too quickly at an emotional
time.
Larry
Lawrence Lake, RPF
Redding, CA
Daniel R.Reitman
<miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 6:50 pm, Sara Brown <SaraTGi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Possibly. It depends on the respective laws of their residence
>states. The "necessities doctrine" imposes an obligation on a person
>to pay for necessary expenses of the spouse, in the states where it is
>followed. Everything else I say here about the law may also vary from
>state to state.
>. . . .
I'd tend to concur that a review of state law is appropriate. I had a
case once in which wife filed for dissolution, but the husband died in
an accident in another state before she could serve the papers.
The hospital at which the husband died then tried to bill her for the
medical expenses. When I showed them the petition for dissolution,
they went away.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Daniel R.Reitman
wrote:
>On 4/18/2011 3:50 PM, Sara Brown wrote:
>> In a nutshell here is the question. A man and woman are legally
>> seperated. They live in different states. The woman has a medical
>> emergency (Chest pains) and goes to the hospital overnight. The woman
>> is at the moment without medical insurance. Would the husband in any
>> way be required to pay the medical bills she ran up?
>
>I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. If you want legal advice,
>hire a lawyer and pay for it.
>
>As a general rule, no. The rules may vary a bit from state to state,
>but most of the time a husband is not legally responsible for his wife's
>debts.
>
>A few exceptions come to mind:
>
>. . . .
Barry missed a big exception: the family purpose rule. In most
states, statutes provide that debts incurred for a family purpose can
be charged to both spouses. The questions that may arise as a result
are whether the debt was, in fact, a family purpose debt, and whether
the marriage was intact or defunct (depending on whether the state
recognizes the concept of defunct marriages).
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHP
INTENDED.
Barry Gold
[snip]
> But "common law marriage" doesn't exist any
> longer (with the possible exception of Pennsylvania, but I think it's
> now gone from there too).
I beg to differ. Acto the Wikipedia article, Common Law marriage is
still allowed in 10 states plus DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_States
Stuart Bronstein
The prior message has gone from my news server, so I can't get the
context. But it's certainly not true that common law marriage is gone
from the US. There are still several states that provide for the
creation of common law marriages. In Texas it was put into the
statutes and is referred to as informal marriage, as I recall.
Rich Carreiro
> from the US. There are still several states that provide for the
> creation of common law marriages. In Texas it was put into the
> statutes and is referred to as informal marriage, as I recall.
If it's put into the statutes it's not exactly common law
anymore, is it? :)
--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com