## Facts

- Shirley B. Chisholm and Melvin Chisholm married in 1953 and separated in January 1990; they remained legally married and lived apart until Melvin’s death.
- On July 31, 1992, Melvin was taken to Forsyth Memorial Hospital; Shirley admitted him and prior insurance information was used.
- The hospital provided necessary medical services from July 31, 1992 to August 14, 1992, when Melvin died.
- The charges remained unpaid in the amount of $45,110.07.
- The hospital learned the insurer paid a check to Melvin’s estate, and the estate was administered and closed without paying the hospital.
- The hospital sued Shirley under the doctrine of necessaries; she denied liability, citing the spouses’ separation.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse who is legally married but living separate and apart is liable under the doctrine of necessaries for necessary medical services furnished to the other spouse.
2. Whether separation relieves the non-patient spouse of liability absent the provider’s actual notice of the separation before or when services are rendered.
3. What elements a provider must prove to establish a prima facie claim for necessaries against the non-recipient spouse.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated summary judgment for Shirley.
- The court held a provider makes a prima facie necessaries claim by showing: (1) medical services were provided to the receiving spouse; (2) the services were necessary for the receiving spouse’s health and well-being; (3) the defendant was married to the receiving spouse when the services were provided; and (4) payment has not been made.
- The court rejected a broad “separation exception” and held separation relieves liability only if the creditor had actual notice of the separation prior to or at the time necessaries were furnished.
- Because the hospital lacked actual notice of the separation when it rendered care, Shirley could not avoid liability based solely on the spouses’ living apart.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of necessaries imposes reciprocal, gender-neutral spousal liability for necessary goods and services furnished to the other spouse when the elements of the claim are proven.
- A creditor’s prima facie case requires proof of provision, necessity, marriage at the time of service, and nonpayment.
- Separation is not, by itself, a defense to a necessaries claim; the non-recipient spouse is relieved only if the creditor had actual notice of the separation before or when the necessaries were supplied.
- The notice requirement protects providers who reasonably extend services in reliance on the marital relationship unless informed that the spouses are separated.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse may be liable for the other spouse’s necessary medical expenses despite living separate and apart, unless the provider had actual notice of the separation at or before the time services were provided; the hospital’s claim could proceed because no such notice was shown.


Forsyth Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Chisholm, 342 N.C. 616, 467 S.E.2d 88 (N.C. 1996)