Court Opinion

ID: 9594589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:31:21.709554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:49.192220
License: Public Domain

*353Connor, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority opinion concerning Baby Boy Drawdy. I respectfully dissent concerning the doctrine of necessaries as it applies to the spouses.
Passmore, citing Anderson Memorial Hosp. v. Hagen, 313 S.C. 497, 443 S.E. (2d) 399 (Ct. App. 1994), held “[t]he necessaries doctrine allows third parties providing necessities to bring an action against a spouse in circuit court.” Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. v. Passmore, 316 S.C. 112, 114, 447 S.E. (2d) 207, 209 (1994) (emphasis added). Passmore also interpreted Hagen as clearly requiring that an “action first must be brought against [the] spouse who incurred necessary expenses before proceeding against [the] other spouse.” Id. at 114, 447 S.E. (2d) at 209, citing Richland Memorial Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 318 S.E. (2d) 12 (1984). Therefore mere demand for payment from the person to whom the necessaries were provided is not enough. In my opinion the creditor must first file an action against the primary obligor and have a nulla bona return before proceeding against a spouse. I would therefore reverse only as to Baby Boy Drawdy.