SNYDER
v.
MASCOLA, ET UX.
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 dentist sued a husband for payment of dental services rendered to his wife during a pending divorce proceeding. The court held that the husband remained liable for the wife's necessities under the doctrine of agency, even though divorce proceedings were pending, and that the dentist had no knowledge of the marital dispute.
The husband remains liable for the wife's necessities even when divorce proceedings are pending. The presumption that a wife obtains necessities as the husband's agent cannot be overcome merely by the pendency of divorce; the husband must provide proof that the wife's needs were adequately provided for by court order, agreement, or separate estate.
[1] A husband is presumed to be liable for necessities furnished to his wife.
[2] The pendency of a divorce or separation action does not affect a husband's liability for necessities furnished to his wife.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“There is a presumption that a person furnishes necessities on the credit of the husband rather than on the credit of the wife, it is pre[sumed] that she acted as an agent of the husband rather than as a principal.”
Establishes the foundational legal presumption that governs the liability question
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1976, the plaintiff dentist performed dental services for Corrine Mascóla, wife of defendant Pat Mascóla, which were paid for by the husba…
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.
This matter was tried by the court on March 17, 1978. The court having had the opportunity to consider the stipulated and sworn testimony of the plaintiff and defendant, Pat Mascóla, and to review the exhibits introduced into evidence, makes the following determination of facts and conclusions of law —
Statement of facts
In November, 1976, Corrine Mascóla, then wife of the defendant Pat Mascóla, engaged the plaintiff to perform dental services which were completed and paid for by the husband.
In April of 1977, a divorce proceeding was instituted regarding the Mascóla marriage.
In April of 1977, while such divorce proceeding was pending, Corrine Mascóla again engaged-the plaintiff to perform dental services, which were completed, payment of the resulting $225 bill being the subject matter of the case at bar.
Conclusions of law
There is a presumption that a person furnishes necessities on the credit of the husband rather than on the credit of the wife, it is pre*60sumed that she acted as an agent of the husband rather than as a principal. 60 ALR 2d 68.
Proof is lacking that the necessity needs of the wife were adequately provided for by the husband by compliance with a court order, if any, by agreement between the parties, if any, or by the wife’s separate estate, if any, as may be required to overcome the aforesaid presumption. Supra, at 53, 55 and 62.
The fact that an action for divorce or separation is pending when the necessities are furnished to the wife does not affect the liability of the husband. Supra, at 58.
Through enactment of Chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes, (Dissolution of Marriage), fault for the separation or pending divorce should no longer have any legal significance on a husband’s liability to supply necessities to the wife.
Proof is lacking that the plaintiff had any knowledge whatsoever that the status of the Mascóla marriage had altered one iota from the initial services to when he performed the now unpaid services. Holiday Hospital Assoc. v. Schwarz, 166 So.2d 493 (2nd DCA 1964).
Based on all of the foregoing, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, Irvin Snyder, D.D.S., do and have recover from the defendant, Pat Mascóla, the sum of $225, plus court costs in the amount of $20.50, for which let execution issue.