Anderson Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Hagen

• Decision Date: 08 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 2162,2162
• Citation: 443 S.E.2d 399,313 S.C. 497
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: ANDERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. Samuel Andrew HAGEN, Respondent. . Heard

Page 399

443 S.E.2d 399

313 S.C. 497

ANDERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. Samuel Andrew HAGEN, Respondent.

No. 2162.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard March 8, 1994.

Decided April 4, 1994.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1994.

Certiorari Denied Dec. 8, 1994.

Steven C. Kirven and Todd R. Davidson, both of Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven, Gable & Gray, Anderson, for appellant.

Thomas E. Hite, Jr., of Hite & Pruitt, Abbeville, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

This is an action on an account stated. Anderson Memorial Hospital, Inc., sued Samuel Andrew Hagen to recover for $62,089.63 worth of hospital services provided to Hagen's deceased wife. The circuit court found Hagen was not liable for his wife's medical expenses, holding the Hospital was barred from bringing a claim against him, since it failed first to institute an action against the wife's estate. The Hospital appeals. We affirm.

The wife was hospitalized periodically from February, 1986, until her death in November, 1988. At each admission to the Hospital, Hagen stated he would pay what he could. He paid the Hospital about $30,000 from February, 1986, until sometime in 1991, usually in monthly installments of $500 to $1000. The net value of the wife's estate exceeded the balance due on her account with the Hospital at the time of her death. However, the Hospital filed no claim against her estate, which has now been discharged from probate. When Hagen stopped making payments, the Hospital sued him for the balance due on his wife's account.

1. The Hospital first argues the circuit court erred in deciding the case solely on the doctrine of necessaries without considering its claim Hagen was also liable on an express or implied contract. The record shows the Hospital based its claim at trial solely on the doctrine of necessaries. It first raised the issue of a contract with Hagen in its motion to reconsider, alter, or amend the judgment. A party cannot use a motion to reconsider to present an issue he could have raised prior to judgment but did not. C.A.H. v. L.H., --- S.C. ----, 434 S.E.2d 268 (1993). ¹

2. The Hospital also argues the circuit court erred in barring its claim against Hagen under the doctrine of necessaries. South Carolina recognizes the common law doctrine of necessaries which, in the absence of contract, allows third parties to bring an action against a husband or wife to recover the cost of necessities incurred by the other spouse during marriage. Richland Memorial Hospital v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 318 S.E.2d 12 (1984). The doctrine of necessaries applies to necessary medical expenses. Id.

The circuit court held the doctrine requires creditors first to seek recovery against the spouse who incurred the necessary expense before proceeding against the other spouse. This precise point has not been decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court. See Richland Memorial Hospital v. Burton, supra. However, the rule is supported by well reasoned authority in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Bartrom v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 618 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.1993); St. Francis Regional Medical Center v. Bowles, 251 Kan. 334, 836 P.2d 1123 (1992); Hulse v. Warren, 777 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); Jersey Shore Medical Center-Fitkin Hospital v. Estate of Baum, 84 N.J. 137, 417 A.2d 1003 (1980). We hold this is also the common law rule in South Carolina. Because the hospital did not first seek to recover from the assets of the wife, the primary obligor, it cannot now recover from the husband, who was only secondarily liable.

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and CONNOR, JJ., concur.

1 W...