Medlock v. Fort Smith Service Finance Corp., 90-340

• Decision Date: 25 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-340,90-340
• Citation: 803 S.W.2d 930,304 Ark. 652
• Parties: Kathryn MEDLOCK, Appellant, v. FORT SMITH SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 930

803 S.W.2d 930

304 Ark. 652

Kathryn MEDLOCK, Appellant, v. FORT SMITH SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 90-340.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 25, 1991.

Michael J. Medlock, Van Buren, for appellant.

Wyman R. Wade, Jr., Fort Smith, for appellee.

CORBIN, Justice.

Appellant, Kathryn Medlock, appeals from the order entered June 22, 1990 awarding summary judgment to appellee, Fort Smith Service Finance Corporation. Appellee, the assignee of a hospital account from Sparks Regional Medical Center, on November 3, 1989, filed suit against appellant and her husband, John Ervin Medlock, Jr., to recover for medical "goods and/or services" provided to Mr. Medlock by Sparks. Although appellant filed a timely answer to the complaint, Mr. Medlock did not answer and on January 30, 1990, the court entered a default judgment against him. On March 22, 1990, a writ of execution was issued; the Sheriff's Return, which was dated the same day, stated, "sent back--defendant J.E. Medlock has nothing of value in his name to levy on." Appellee, on March 19, 1990, filed a motion for summary judgment against appellant. At a hearing on the motion appellee argued that the common law doctrine of necessaries should be applied to hold appellant liable for the account as the wife of John Ervin Medlock. The doctrine of necessaries provides that the husband is liable to a creditor for necessaries furnished to his wife. See Arkansas State Hospital v. Kestle, 236 Ark. 5, 364 S.W.2d 804 (1963); Holmes v. Hollingsworth, 234 Ark. 347, 352 S.W.2d 96 (1961). We note that under Arkansas common law the wife has not been held to be similarly liable. In fact, prior to the enactment of 1915 Ark. Acts 159, a married woman was not even liable on her own contracts. See Warner v. Hess, 66 Ark. 113, 49 S.W. 489 (1899). Regardless, the court granted appellee's motion.

Appellant argues that the trial court's decision was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and its granting summary judgment was error as a matter of law. She contends there is no basis in law for finding her liable for the debt.

Appellee, on the other hand, insists the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires that we extend the liability of providing necessaries to the wife. The United States Supreme Court has indicated it will strike down all gender based laws which do not serve a legitimate governmental purpose and are reasonably designed to accomplish that purpose. See Stokes v. Stokes, 271 Ark. 300, 613 S.W.2d 372 (1981). However, for a litigant to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law, it must be unconstitutional as applied to him. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 267 Ark. 595, 593 S.W.2d 21 (1980). The general rule is that one must have suffered injury or belong to a class which is prejudiced in order to have standing to challenge the validity of a law. Stokes, supra. Constitutional rights are personal rights and may not be raised by a third party, although there is a narrow exception for cases in which the issue would not otherwise be susceptible of judicial review and it appears that the third party is sufficiently interested in the outcome that the interest of the party whose constitutional rights were allegedly deprived would be adequately represented. Kennedy v. Kelly, 295 Ark. 678, 751 S.W.2d 6 (1988). The exception does not apply here; appellee, therefore, does not have standing to raise the equal protection issue.

When raised by an appropriate party, other jurisdictions have considered and decided issues pertaining to the common law doctrine of necessaries and its relation to statutory provisions governing marital rights and obligations. See Cleveland Metro. Gen. Hosp. v. Oleksik, 38 Ohio App.3d 21, 525 N.E.2d 831 (1987); Schilling v. Bedford City Mem. Hosp., 225 Va. 539, 303 S.E.2d 905 (1983). On the facts before us, however, we see no need to address either the question of whether the common law doctrine of necessaries is actually in force in Arkansas any longer or, if it is, whether the equal protection clause requires that it be extended to make the wife liable for necessaries provided to her husband. Assuming, without deciding, the viability of the doctrine, the question presented on appeal is limited to whether the trial court was correct in extending to a wife the long-standing common law...