OTTO RUNKEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SOUTHEAST PALM BEACH HOSPITAL DISTRICT, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A hospital sued a husband to recover his wife's hospital bill, relying on his admitted status as her spouse. The court reversed summary judgment because the husband's affirmative defense—that the hospital extended credit based solely on the wife's creditworthiness, not his—presented a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial.
Summary judgment was improper because Otto's affirmative defense created a genuine issue of material fact. Although Otto's admission of the marriage defeated his attempt to contradict it with an affidavit, the hospital was required to furnish proof that Otto's defense—that credit was extended solely to Shirley—was untenable, and the hospital failed to do so.
[1] A husband is not liable for services extended to his wife if credit for those services was extended exclusively to the wife.
[2] A party's affidavit is ineffective against a prior pleading admission of the same fact.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if credit for necessaries, goods, or services furnished the wife is extended exclusively to her, her husband ordinarily is not liable for them”
Establishes the common law rule that a husband is not liable for services extended solely on the wife's credit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Southeast Palm Beach Hospital District sued Otto Runkel for a hospital bill incurred by his wife, Shirley Runkel. Otto admitted being married to S…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Necessaries cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The Southeast Palm Beach Hospital District sued Otto Runkel to recover a hospital bill incurred by Shirley Runkel, Otto’s wife. Otto filed an answer that admitted that he and Shirley were husband and wife living in a family relationship. By way of affirmative defense, Otto claimed the hospital admitted Shirley based upon her own credit and financial status and not on his.
The hospital moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit that simply proved up the bill for the services rendered to Shirley. Otto contends on appeal that the order entering summary judgment is erroneous because 1) he filed an affidavit stating that he and Shirley were separated (she used her maiden name, was self-employed, and was responsible for all of her bills); and 2) a factual issue was presented by his affirmative defense that the hospital extended credit to Shirley and not to him.
Since Otto’s answer ádmitted paragraph 4 of the complaint, there was no genuine issue as regards Otto and Shirley’s being husband and wife and living in a family relationship. Otto’s affidavit was ineffective against the pleading admission. However, in order to prevail against Otto’s affirmative defense that the hospital’s admission of Shirley as a patient was based on her credit and not Otto’s, the hospital was required to furnish proof that such defense was untenable. Since the hospital failed to furnish such proof, there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment.
Implicit in the foregoing is the common law rule, which has not been abrogated by statute in Florida, that services extended to a married woman based solely on her credit do not obligate her husband:
The general rule, both at common law and under statutes enabling a married woman to contract, is that if credit for necessaries, goods, or services furnished the wife is extended exclusively to her, her husband ordinarily is not liable for them. The purchase of necessaries by a wife who has the capacity to contract and make purchases on her own credit casts no liability on her husband where she neither has nor discloses any intent to purchase on his credit, and the seller has no intent to give to anyone other than the wife.
41 Am.Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, § 383, p. 320 (footnotes omitted).
Accordingly, the summary judgment for the hospital is reversed because of the issue of fact presented by Otto’s third affirmative defense.
DAUKSCH, JAMES C., and PURDY, H. MARK, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lolan Beers v. The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 468 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…t appears in the pleadings and the record that Beers may be able to assert the common law defense that services extended to a married woman based solely on her credit do not obligate her husband. See Runkel v. Southeast Palm Beach Hospital District, 453 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion on petition for rehearing. . Although the majority rejects the abandonment defense “as a matter of law,” it later states that "[njothing in the record supports a f…1 / 3