## Facts

- Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center provided medical services to Kenneth Connor in 1992, leaving an unpaid balance exceeding $85,000.
- The hospital alleged Kenneth signed a written agreement to pay for services.
- The hospital sued both Kenneth Connor and his wife, Barbara E. Connor, for the unpaid charges.
- Barbara moved to dismiss, asserting she never signed any agreement to pay her husband’s medical bills.
- The hospital argued Barbara was liable under the common-law doctrine of necessaries for her husband’s medical care.
- The trial court dismissed the claim against Barbara, refusing to impose liability on her absent a signed agreement.
- The district court of appeal reversed and remanded, concluding the hospital had a cause of action against Barbara under a reciprocal version of the necessaries doctrine and certified conflict with other districts.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida should apply the common-law doctrine of necessaries in a gender-neutral, reciprocal manner to impose liability on a पत्नी for necessary medical services provided to her husband absent an express contract.
2. Whether the doctrine of necessaries should instead be abolished as an obsolete, sex-based common-law rule, leaving spousal liability to contract or legislation.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court of appeal’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the claim against Barbara Connor.
- The Court abolished the common-law doctrine of necessaries in Florida as a basis for third-party creditors to impose spousal liability absent an express contractual undertaking.
- Because Barbara did not sign an agreement, the hospital had no common-law cause of action against her for her husband’s medical debt.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse is not liable to a third-party creditor for the other spouse’s necessary expenses (including medical services) absent an express contract creating that obligation.
- The common-law necessaries doctrine, rooted in coverture and historically imposing liability on husbands for wives’ necessaries, is abolished as a source of third-party creditor claims.
- Courts should not create a new reciprocal, gender-neutral spousal-liability rule through common law where doing so would constitute a major policy choice more appropriately addressed by the legislature.
- Abolishing the necessaries doctrine does not bar providers from protecting their interests through standard contract practices (e.g., obtaining a signature or guaranty).

## Conclusion

Florida eliminated the common-law necessaries doctrine for third-party creditor claims, holding that spousal liability for a partner’s medical debts requires an express contractual commitment or legislative authorization rather than a status-based common-law rule.


Connor v. Sw. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 668 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1995)