Story by Marianna Brown Bettman, Professor of Practice Emerita at the University of Cincinnati College of Law

Embassy Healthcare (“Embassy”) operates a nursing home where Robert Bell stayed before he died. Robert signed an admission agreement with Embassy on January 9, 2014. The terms of that agreement make Robert responsible for payment in full for any amounts owed to the facility. Cora also signed the agreement as the “Responsible Party,” which is defined in the agreement as the one liable for services rendered to Robert to the extent of Robert’s income, asserts or resources to which she, as Responsible Party, had legal access.  But the agreement also expressly states that nothing in the agreement shall be construed to require Cora, as Responsible Party, to be personally liable for payment for services rendered to Robert.

Robert died on May 22, 2014. On November 25, 2014, six months and three days after Robert died, Embassy sent a letter to Cora seeking payment from Robert’s estate for an outstanding bill of $1678. The letter was addressed to the Estate of Robert Bell, c/o Cora Bell, Fiduciary, and addressed to her as Personal Representative of the Estate. And the body of the letter stated that Cora “was not personally liable for the account.”

No estate had been opened, however.  And Embassy never sought to have an estate administrator appointed to present a claim for unpaid services to Robert’s estate.  Instead, on June 29, 2015, Embassy sued Cora under Ohio’s necessaries statute in Franklin Municipal Court in Warren County, seeking payment from her for Robert’s unpaid expenses. The magistrate granted summary judgment to Cora on the ground that Embassy failed to prove Robert could not pay for Embassy’s services to him, a prerequisite under the necessaries statute. The trial court upheld the magistrate’s decision on a different ground—that Embassy first had to seek payment from Robert’s estate and had failed to do so within the time allowed. Embassy appealed.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, in a split decision. The majority held that the necessaries statute creates a claim against a debtor’s spouse independent of the statute of limitations for claims against an estate, and that Cora had not affirmatively proven that Robert had sufficient Medicare coverage to pay for Embassy’s services, creating a question of fact on that issue. The dissenting judge would affirm summary judgment for Cora. He would find that Embassy, which had the burden of proof under the necessaries statute, failed to prove that Robert was unable to pay for his necessary medical expenses.