If you owe money, is your spouse liable for your debt? Being married does not, in itself, mean you are liable for your spouse’s debts. There may be spousal liability, however, if the doctrine of necessaries applies and creates enforceable financial liability.
The general rule is that, absent an agreement, a person 18 years and older is not responsible for another adult’s debt. You will be liable, however, if you signed a personal guarantee, signed as a co-borrower, or other agreement. Being married does not automatically create liability for your spouse’s debts. Some debt collectors may suggest that there is automatic spousal liability, but this is not true.
Though you are not automatically liable for your spouse’s debt, New York recognizes the common law doctrine of necessaries. This may impose spousal liability for the debts of the other spouse.
What Is the Common Law Doctrine of Necessaries?
A legal doctrine becomes law due to the court’s adherence to past legal decisions. The early common law recognized that the husband had a duty to support his wife and provide for her necessary expenses. From the husband’s obligation of support came the common law doctrine of necessaries. The doctrine of necessaries made the husband liable to third parties who provided essential goods and services to his wife and children. Due to constitutional challenges under the equal protection clause, New York expanded the doctrine of necessaries so that husbands and wives are both liable for each other. This decision was a recognition of the personal duty of each spouse to support the other.
But this does not mean you are responsible for your spouse’s debts merely because you are married. The doctrine of necessaries applies and imposes liability on a spouse only when the creditor providing the necessary services or goods relied on the assets of the other spouse and the other spouse had sufficient assets to pay for the necessaries.
Here’s an example of when the Doctrine of Necessaries apply thereby creating spousal liability:
A patient requires surgery. The surgery and aftercare are not covered by the patient’s insurance. The patient would need to pay out of pocket for the surgery and aftercare. The patient wants the surgeon to operate but it is clear to the medical provider that the patient can not afford to pay for the medical services. The patient is employed part time and relies on another for financial support. The patient’s spouse has a high paying job and tells the surgeon’s office that they have the ability to pay for the surgery and aftercare. The surgeon’s office verified that the spouse holds title to a home worth millions , earns a great salary, has large savings and lots of investments. The spouse’s claim that they can afford to pay is true!
Based upon the spouse’s representation, the surgeon agrees to operate. The spouse does not sign a guarantee of payment. Regardless. the surgeon seeks payment from the non-patient spouse correctly relying on the Doctrine of Necessaries. The undisputed facts are that the surgeon relied on the assets and ability of the non-patient spouse to pay for the care of the patient spouse. Spousal liability was created by the Doctrine of Necessaries.
Here’s an example of when the Doctrine of Necessaries would not apply to create spousal liability:
A patient requires surgery. The surgery and after care are not covered by the patient’s insurance. The patient would need to pay out of pocket for the surgery and aftercare. The patient wants the surgeon to operate nonetheless. It is clear to the medical provider that the patient can not afford to pay for the medical services. The patient is employed part time and relies on another for financial support. The patient’s spouse too has few or no assets. The couple struggle financially. The spouse wants the surgeon to operate claiming he will find a way to pay!! Based upon the spouse’s representation that he will find a way to pay, the surgeon agrees to operate. The spouse never signs a guarantee of payment. But when the surgeon seeks payment, she looks to the non-patient spouse. The surgeon claims she relied on that the spouse’s word that he would find a way to pay and looks to the Doctrine of Necessaries for spousal liability. In this scenario, the Doctrine of Necessaries would not apply. There is no way that the surgeon could have reasonably relied on the assets and ability of the spouse to pay for the surgical services and aftercare when the ability to pay and assets did not exist.
Have a debt collection matter you need assistance with? Contact Frank, Frank, Goldstein and Nager for a consultation.
