South Bend Clinic v. Estate of Ruffing
Decision Date | 23 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 50A03-8605-CV-00137,50A03-8605-CV-00137 |
Citation | 501 N.E.2d 1114 |
Parties | SOUTH BEND CLINIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Frank S. RUFFING, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Richard A. Nussbaum, II, Krisor & Nussbaum, South Bend, for plaintiff-appellant.
Fred R. Jones, Goodrich, Jones & Huff, Plymouth, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, South Bend Clinic (Clinic) rendered medical services in the amount of $7,910.00 to Edna Ruffing, the wife of Frank S. Ruffing, Jr. Mrs. Ruffing subsequently died and her estate was opened June 14, 1983. The total liabilities of the estate far exceeded the estate's assets. Consequently, Mrs. Ruffing's estate proposed a pro rata distribution to the creditors. The Clinic received $579.63. The Clinic did not, however, file a statement of claim with the court in which Mrs. Ruffing's estate was being administered.
Frank S. Ruffing, Jr. died November 23, 1984. His estate was opened November 30, 1984, and the Clinic timely filed a claim for the balance of medical expenses incurred by Mrs. Ruffing. This claim was disallowed and placed on the trial and issue docket. Thereafter, Mr. Ruffing's estate filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the Clinic's claim was forever barred because it failed to file a claim in Mrs. Ruffing's estate. On cross motion for summary judgment, the Clinic argued that under Indiana law, spouses are jointly liable for medical expenses. It was, therefore, entitled to separately pursue an action against Mr. Ruffing for the services rendered to his spouse.
On February 6, 1986, the Marshall Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Frank S. Ruffing, Jr. and against the South Bend Clinic. We affirm.
The standard of review of a summary judgment requires this court to ascertain that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the law was correctly applied to the facts of the case. Siddall v. City of Michigan City (1985), Ind.App., 485 N.E.2d 912, 913. Here, the parties agree that no question of fact exists; instead, the South Bend Clinic alleges that the trial court erroneously applied the law. Specifically, the Clinic claims that in Memorial Hospital v. Hahaj (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 412 this court decreed that spouses are jointly liable for the medical expenses furnished to either spouse.
At common law, the wife's legal identity merged with that of her husband. The effect was to place the wife under a number of legal disabilities. Her husband was entitled to the possession and the profits of her property. She could not enter contracts and there were restrictions on her ability to litigate. See Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287, 44 N.E. 462.
However, the Married Woman's Act abolished many of these legal disabilities. See IC 31-1-9-1. A married woman may now acquire and hold property and she may enter into contracts in her own behalf. She may litigate without restriction, and she is liable for the torts which she commits. See IC 31-1-9-2 and 4. Nevertheless, even after the Married Woman's Act, the common law rule that a husband is liable for his wife's necessaries, including her medical expenses, continued in most jurisdictions. See 20 A.L.R. 4th 196, 201. Indiana was one of these jurisdictions. See City of Terre Haute v. Pigg (1940), 108 Ind.App. 68, 27 N.E.2d 137.
In Memorial Hospital v. Hahaj, supra, while recognizing that marriage is a shared enterprise "akin to a partnership" this court nevertheless expressed its preference for a gender neutral approach. Judge Staton espoused the following rule:
Id. at 416. This does not mean that spouses are jointly liable for medical expenses as the Clinic claims. Instead, it means that a creditor must first seek satisfaction from the income and property of the spouse who incurred the debt. Only if those resources are insufficient may a creditor seek satisfaction from the other income and property of the marital relationship. See Jersey Shore Medical Center-Fitkin Hospital v. Estate of Baum (1980), 84 N.J. 137, 417 A.2d 1003.
Since it was Mrs. Ruffing who incurred the medical expenses, the South Bend Clinic first had to seek satisfaction from her income and property. Furthermore, since the claim the Clinic is seeking to recover constitutes a debt or demand of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against Mrs. Ruffing in her lifetime and reduced to a simple money judgment, it falls within the purview of the Indiana Probate Code. Rising Sun State Bank v. Fessler (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1164, 1166. Accordingly, in order to recover on this claim, the Clinic was required to comply with IC 29-1-14-1. Id.
IC 29-1-14-1 provides that:
This section is not a statute of limitations, it is a nonclaim statute. It imposes a condition precedent to the enforcement of a right of action and precludes recovery when the condition is not met. Pasley v. American Underwriters, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 838. Unless the claim is filed within five months as prescribed by the statute, any right of action will be forever barred. Rising Sun v. Fessler, supra, at 1166. 1 Thus, the time element is part of the right of action itself. Id.
In this case, it is undisputed that the South Bend Clinic did not file a claim in the court in which Mrs. Ruffing's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Evansville v. Moore
...cannot be extended by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, disability, fraud, or misconduct of the parties. South Bend Clinic v. Estate of Ruffing (1986), Ind.App., 501 N.E.2d 1114; State ex rel. Bodine v. Elkhart County Election Board (1984), Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 773; Donnella v. Crady (19......
-
Konger v. Schillace
...order is properly before us. 4. This section is not a statute of limitations, it is a nonclaim statute. S. Bend Clinic v. Estate of Ruffing, 501 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.Ct. App.1986). It imposes a condition precedent to the enforcement of a right of action and precludes recovery when the con......
-
Hickory Creek at Connersville v. Estate of Combs
...and an equitable manner.3 Id. & n.14. Otto's Estate argues that this case is "remarkably" similar to South Bend Clinic v. Estate of Ruffing, 501 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). Appellee's Br. p. 7. In that case, Edna Ruffing and Frank Ruffing, Jr., were married. South Bend Clinic provided......
-
Connersville v. Estate of Combs
...and an equitable manner.3Id. & n. l4. Otto's Estate argues that this case is “remarkably” similar to South Bend Clinic v. Estate of Ruffing, 501 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). Appellee's Br. p. 7. In that case, Edna Ruffing and Frank Ruffing, Jr., were married. South Bend Clinic provided me......