I am asking you to explain this phrase "only if the non-contracting spouse has otherwise agreed to contractual liability or can be said to have authorized the debt by implication under the laws of agency."
Thanks for the clarification.
1) Non-contractual spouse agreed to contractual liability.
This would arise if the spouse had an agreement his or her husband and wife that he would also be liable for the debt. This could be done though an express written agreement or a verbal agreement with the spouse, that the spouse would also be responsible for a debt to a creditor.
2) Authorized the debt my implication under the laws of agency.
This would occur if the debt that was incurred was incurred in furtherance of the spouse's interests. Most noticeably, would be a situation in which the debtor spouse gave the non-contracting spouse a credit card and he or she made the purchases that created a debt.
Otherwise, it can be argued that if a credit card were used to purchase home necessities, then the debt (at least the portion spent on these necessities) would be considered to be on behalf of the husband and wife of the debtor spouse.
This is the legal definition:
"In law, a relationship in which one party (the agent) acts on behalf of and under the control of another (the principal) in dealing with third parties."
I hope the above information is helpful.
Please let me know if you have any clarifying questions as I want to ensure that you are completely satisfied with my service. If not, please remember to rate my answer positively so I get paid for my work.
Thanks and best of luck!
I am going to ask you to opt out since you are not licensed in Indiana
Hello,Different contributor here. I am also not licensed in Indiana -- however, I have comprehensive access to the Westlaw® proprietary research system. Consequently, I can provide dispositive answers to any substantive legal question, if the question has been resolved by any appellate court in the USA. I have already located case that you can review online which will provide you with a thorough discussion of the doctrine of necessaries as applied under Indiana law. Frankly, the case law is probably better than any advice that you could obtain from a licensed Indiana practitioner, unless that person were to do exactly what I am offering: provide you with the dispositive case law. Note: I'm probably the only person at justanswer.com with the level of access to Westlaw sufficient to thoroughly dispose of your question. So, if you choose to wait, you could be waiting a very long time for a dispositive answer.Please advise if you would like me to assist. Thanks.
please assist..can you find case law that explains this phrase "only if the non-contracting spouse has otherwise agreed to contractual liability or can be said to have authorized the debt by implication under the laws of agency."
This case law does not explain the application of the phrase that begins with the words "only if..." I mentioned above. it appears that medical creditors can attach the assets of both spouses anytime. can you find case law that a medical creditor lost in court because the financially superior spouse did not not agree to be contractually liable. How does one NOT imply to authorize a debt of their spouses? Is the fact that Indiana not a community property state a matter of statute? Does statute law supersede common law? Doesn't this doctrine of necessaries impose a liability on a person for someone else's bills when that person has no right of ownership in the other person's assets or income. what is to prevent a spouse from squandering their own personal wealth then going to the hospital and losing the personal wealth of their spouse? What if the spouse runs up tens of thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgery?
This case law does not explain the application of the phrase that begins with the words "only if..." I mentioned above. A: I think that the case law explains the phrase marvelously! The Hickory Creek court writes:
The above-quoted text clearly shows how a spouse can be held secondarily liable for necessary financial support, where the other spouse's separate earnings and/or assets are insufficient to cover such necessary support. it appears that medical creditors can attach the assets of both spouses anytime. A: The above-quoted case law clearly shows that the spouse who incurs the debt is primarily liable for its payment -- and that only if the spouse cannot make payment from his or her earnings and/or assets is the other spouse liable for the difference. can you find case law that a medical creditor lost in court because the financially superior spouse did not agree to be contractually liable. A: After searching the case law, I find no appellate court opinion supporting this proposed assertion. Moreover, the case law that I have provided shows unambiguously that the spouse's refusal to be bound to pay for a necessary of the other spouse, will not protect the non-consenting spouse. So, looking for contrary decisions is pointless, since the Supreme Court has already spoken definitively as to exactly how liability is to be imposed.However, it is equally clear that not every expense is a necessary. Cosmetic surgery, is arguably not a necessary. It would have been unknown at the time when the doctrine of necessaries was originated, because medical technology for such activities did not yet exist. So, the question of whether or not cosmetic surgery is a necessary is a question of fact and law for a court to determine. It is definitely not a fait accompli for a creditor. How does one NOT imply to authorize a debt of their spouses?A: The implied obligation under the doctrine of necessaries is one of mixed law and fact. A spouse does not have to do anything to impliedly guarantee the unpaid balance of his or her spouse. The doctrine imposes secondary liability where a spouse incurs a necessary. The question is whether or not a particular debt is in fact "necessary." That in my view is your argument against personal liability -- if the issue is cosmetic surgery -- as apparently is the case. Because if cosmetic surgery is not a necessary, then the plaintiff's entire argument falls apart.Is the fact that Indiana not a community property state a matter of statute?A: It is well-established beyond dispute that there are only nine U.S. community property jurisdictions, and Indiana is not among them. No court would find to the contrary.Does statute law supersede common law?A: To the extent that a statute resolves a common law issue differently than the common law would, yes. This, too is established beyond reasonable dispute. It is one of the foundations of substantive due process under U.S. law. Doesn't this doctrine of necessaries impose a liability on a person for someone else's bills when that person has no right of ownership in the other person's assets or income. what is to prevent a spouse from squandering their own personal wealth then going to the hospital and losing the personal wealth of their spouse? What if the spouse runs up tens of thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgery?A: I think that I've covered your remaining questions concretely in my answers above. I don't know exactly what's going on, but if this is about your spouse buying cosmetic surgery and then handing you the bill, I believe that with competent legal representation you could avoid personal liability for the debt. However, not knowing the status of your case, or the disposition of your separate and marital assets, etc., I'm in no position to provide a definitive answer to that sort of question. Only a lawyer "on the ground," would have sufficient details to be able to construct a proper defense for you.
Hope this helps.
One more set of question and I will be satisfied. I am looking for legal remedies to overcome this doctrine. A person of substantial wealth puts their entire fortune at risk due to the fact of spirally medical costs,( fighting cancer could cost hundred of thousands of dollars) and this doctrine, if such a person enters into a marriage with a person of lesser means. Would joint ownership (mother and daughter)of a million dollar farm protect the intention that the daughter receive the farm after her death, if the mother marries a person of lesser means. Or possibly deeding the farm to the daughter and leasing the property back for 99 years. The farm in question has been in this family for 5 generations
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).