## Facts

- Rachel R. Holbrook received medical treatment from Cheshire Medical Center while married to and living with Robert W. Holbrook.
- The medical center billed Rachel $7,080.40 for the services.
- Rachel later became incarcerated and could not pay the bill; she proposed $10 monthly payments until her expected release, with larger payments thereafter if employed and healthy.
- The medical center sought to attach Robert’s real property to collect the debt, relying on the common-law doctrine of necessaries imposing liability on a husband for a wife’s necessary medical expenses.
- Robert challenged whether the doctrine remained valid and whether a husband-only obligation was constitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the traditional, gender-specific doctrine of necessaries violates equal protection under the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions.
2. If unconstitutional, whether the doctrine should be abolished or modified.
3. If retained, whether liability is sole, joint and several, or primary and secondary between spouses.

## Decision

- The court held the traditional doctrine unconstitutional because it imposed liability on husbands but not wives and rested on outdated assumptions about marital roles.
- The court declined to abolish the doctrine and instead reformulated it to apply equally to either spouse.
- The court held the spouse who received the necessary goods or services is primarily liable, and the other spouse is secondarily liable only if the recipient spouse’s resources are insufficient.
- The court answered the transferred questions and returned the matter for further proceedings consistent with the revised rule.

## Legal Principles

- A common-law rule that assigns spousal liability based on gender violates equal protection.
- For necessary medical expenses, the patient-spouse is primarily responsible for payment.
- The non-patient spouse may be held secondarily liable for the patient-spouse’s necessary medical debt only when the patient-spouse lacks sufficient resources to satisfy the obligation.
- The provider must look first to the patient-spouse for payment before pursuing the other spouse under the necessaries doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the husband-only necessaries doctrine on equal-protection grounds, retained the doctrine in a gender-neutral form, and set a primary/secondary liability structure that makes the treated spouse responsible first and the other spouse liable only if the treated spouse cannot pay.


Cheshire Med. Ctr. v. Holbrook, 663 A.2d 1344 (N.H. 1995)