Eugene R Heckencamp

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	E UGENE R. HECKENKAMP ,
Debtor
Case No. 	05-37538
Judge L. S. Walter
Chapter 7
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO CLAIM
This matter is before the court upon the Objection to Allowance of Claims of Creditors
[doc. 17] (“Objection to Claim”) filed by the Debtor and the response thereto of Miami Valley
Hospital (“MVH”) [doc. 19]. The Debtor objects to the proof of claim of MVH, Claim No. 6, in
the amount of $155,470.54. The court conducted a hearing on November 7, 2006 and, having
reviewed the pleadings and exhibits and considered the testimony of witnesses and other
evidence, the court finds the Objection to Claim to be unfounded and hereby denies same as
more fully set forth below.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2006
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:05-bk-37538 Doc 25 Filed 11/14/06 Entered 11/15/06 09:01:28 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
Debtor generally denies liability to MVH for services rendered to his deceased wife,
Kathy I. Heckenkamp because he had no contractual or adjudicated obligation to pay for her
expenses.1 The services rendered to Mrs. Heckenkamp related to her final illness and the
charges amounted to $97,359.92 plus interest and costs. Debtor makes several tangential
arguments, none of which have any merit. First, Debtor argues that he sent three checks to MVH
which were returned to him as “overpayments.” According to uncontroverted testimony, these
payments were for discreet accounts unrelated to the accounts represented in the disputed proof
of claim. Debtor also argues that Mrs. Heckenkamp had her own income and paid her own
medical expenses to the extent she was able and that Mr. Heckenkamp assisted with these
payments including making payments to the extent he was able following her death. It is unclear
why Debtor believes these facts relieve Mr. Heckenkamp from any further legal obligation for
his deceased wife’s medical expenses. It may be that Debtor believes that such facts make the
early case of Tille v. Finley, 126 Ohio St. 578 (1933) applicable. But that case, which did not
involve a deceased spouse, was distinguished and largely limited to its facts by the later decision
in Ohio State Univ. Hosp. v. Kinkaid, 48 Ohio St. 78 (1990). Debtor has cited no other relevant
legal authority and the court is not aware of any such authority.
The real issue in this case is the applicability of O.R.C. § 3103.03 in the context of a
spouse’s last illness and resulting penniless estate. Revised Code § 3103.03 provides in relevant
part:
(A) Each married person must support the person’s self and spouse out of the person’s
property or by the person’s labor. If a married person is unable to do so, the spouse of the
married person must assist in the support so far as the spouse is able. The biological or
adoptive parent of a minor child must support the parent’s minor children out of the
parent’s property or by the parent’s labor.
* * *
1 A portion of the claim relates to medical services provided to the Debtor rather than his wife. Debtor provides no
basis for objecting to expenses he incurred on his own behalf and admitted his liability for that portion of the claim
at the hearing.
Case 3:05-bk-37538 Doc 25 Filed 11/14/06 Entered 11/15/06 09:01:28 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
(C) If a married person neglects to support the person’s spouse in accordance with this
section, any other person, in good faith, may supply the spouse with necessaries for the
support of the spouse and recover the reasonable value of the necessaries supplied from
the married person who neglected to support the spouse unless the spouse abandons that
person without cause.
R.C. § 3013.03. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the terms of R.C. § 3103.03 are clear,
and pursuant to the statute a spouse must aid in the support of the other spouse to the extent he or
she is able. Kinkaid, 48 Ohio St. at 78. Like the Kinkaid case, the Oleksik case involved a
surviving spouse’s obligation to pay the medical expenses incurred during the other spouse’s last
illness: “[C]ommon sense, elementary fairness and a simple understanding of the federal and
state court opinions on this question would dictate that the wife of a decedent is responsible for
her husband's necessities at his last illness if his estate is not able to pay, irrespective of the
provisions of R.C. 3103.03 and 3103.05” Cleveland Metro. Gen. Hosp. v. Oleksik, 38 Ohio
App.3d 21, 22-23 (1987). See also, Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Brink, 80 Ohio App.3d 793, 797
(1992); Smith v. Snapp, 16 Ohio Op.2d 304 (1961) (wife liable for the funeral expenses and
those incurred during her husband’s last illness even where she has not directly contracted for
them, and the Court will so hold, where the husband has no estate).
Given the unequivocal nature of Ohio law on these issues, and the evidence and
testimony presented at the trial of this matter, there can be no doubt that the Debtor in this case
has an absolute obligation to pay the medical expenses of his deceased spouse, tempered only by
the statutory limitation, “so far as the spouse is able.” According to the Kinkaid court, the
determination as to a spouse’s ability to assist in payment of such expenses is “within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Kinkaid, 48 Ohio St. at 80. In this instance, however, the extent of
the Debtor’s ability to pay these expenses will be definitively determined by virtue of this
chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. His non-exempt assets will be applied pro rata to pay his
Case 3:05-bk-37538 Doc 25 Filed 11/14/06 Entered 11/15/06 09:01:28 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
creditors’ claims, including that of MVH, and he will discharge the balance of those claims that
he is unable to pay.
Consequently, it is the determination of this court that the claim of MVH in the total
amount of $155,470.54 (inclusive of interest and costs) is an allowed claim. The Objection to
Claim filed by the Debtor is hereby OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
cc: 	Mary K. Soter, 5518 N. Main St., Dayton, OH 45415-3455
Eugene R. Heckencamp, 2952 Benchwood Road, Dayton, OH 45415
Paul H. Spaeth, 130 W. 2nd St., Suite 450, Dayton, OH 45402
Stephen E. Klein, 240 Bohanan Dr., Vandalia, OH 45377
United States Trustee, 170 N. High St., Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215-2417
# # #
Case 3:05-bk-37538 Doc 25 Filed 11/14/06 Entered 11/15/06 09:01:28 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4