Maintenance obligation towards a hospitalised parent: how much must children pay?

Imagine the scene: in Antibes, an elderly mother is hospitalised for several months at the Henri-Gabrielle hospital. Her three children, Sami, Moïse and Serge, one day receive a court summons: the hospital is claiming reimbursement of their mother's accommodation costs, amounting to several tens of thousands of euros. 'But we were never informed, and our mother never asked for our help!', they exclaim. This situation could happen to you in Menton, Nice or elsewhere. The question is simple: can a hospital turn to a patient's children to obtain payment for their care, and up to what amount?

The answer is given by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 24 June 2015 (No. 14-15.538). This decision clarifies the rules applicable to the recourse of public health establishments against maintenance debtors — that is, persons legally required to provide maintenance to a parent in need, such as children towards their parents. In short, the hospital can only claim what each child actually owes, according to their means and the parent's needs. And the famous rule 'aliments do not fall into arrears' (meaning that arrears of maintenance are not subject to prescription) only applies from the side of the maintenance creditor, here the hospitalised person, not from the hospital's side.

This article will break down this decision for you, whether you are a property owner, tenant or real estate professional, explaining concretely what it changes and how to protect yourself. Because if you are in a similar situation — a parent hospitalised in Nice, Antibes or Menton — you need to know your rights and obligations.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mrs Y..., a mother, is hospitalised at the Henri-Gabrielle hospital, managed by the Hospices civils de Lyon (HCL). She stays there for several months, without her three children, Sami, Moïse and Serge Y..., being informed of the extent of the costs. The HCL, considering that the children must contribute to the accommodation costs under the maintenance obligation (the legal obligation of children to support their parents in need), send them an invoice. Faced with refusal to pay, the HCL sue the three children.

The writs are served on 23 September 2010 for Sami and Moïse, and on 7 June 2012 for Serge. That is a delay of nearly two years between the first and the last writ. The children contest: they argue that their mother was never in need, that she had sufficient resources, and that the hospital cannot claim sums for a period too far in the past. The Lyon Court of Appeal partly agrees with them, but the HCL appeal to the Court of Cassation.

The dispute concerned two issues: first, the amount each child had to pay — the hospital claimed the total costs, without taking into account each person's means; second, the application of the rule 'aliments do not fall into arrears', meaning that arrears of maintenance payments are not subject to prescription. The HCL wanted this rule to apply also to their recourse, which would have allowed them to claim sums over several years without any limitation period.

In short, it is the classic story of a hospital seeking reimbursement, and children who do not understand why they should pay for their mother when she never asked for anything. But what did the Court of Cassation say?

The reasoning of the court — explained

The Court of Cassation delivered a very technical decision, but its meaning is clear: the hospital's recourse against maintenance debtors is limited to what those debtors owe. In other words, the hospital cannot claim more than what each child owes under the maintenance obligation, taking into account their resources and the parent's needs.

The legal basis is Article 205 of the Civil Code, which provides that 'children owe maintenance to their father and mother who are in need'. The Court recalls that this obligation is not automatic: it depends on the parent's state of need and the child's means. In this case, the Court of Appeal had precisely reduced the amount owed by each child according to their income. The Court of Cassation validates this approach: the hospital cannot claim the total costs from a single child, nor demand a flat sum without individual assessment.

But the central point of the decision concerns the rule 'aliments do not fall into arrears'. This rule, derived from former Article 227-7 of the Civil Code (now incorporated into the provisions on prescription), means that maintenance claims are not subject to prescription by non-use: a child who has not paid for years can be pursued for all unpaid instalments, even old ones. The Court of Cassation specifies that this rule applies only to the maintenance creditor, i.e. the hospitalised parent. Consequently, the hospital, which is not the maintenance creditor but a subrogated third party (substituted to the creditor to claim the debt), cannot invoke this rule to escape the ordinary limitation period. Thus, the hospital's action is subject to the ordinary five-year limitation period (Article 2224 of the Civil Code: 5 years from the day the right holder knew or should have known the facts enabling him to exercise it).

What few people know is that this decision overturns a Court of Appeal decision that had followed the opposite reasoning. The Court of Cassation therefore sets a clear limit: the hospital cannot claim sums that are time-barred, even if the parent himself could. However, note that this solution protects debtors against excessive claims, but it does not exempt them from paying what they actually owe.

In summary, the Court of Cassation confirms that the maintenance obligation is personal and proportionate, and that the hospital does not benefit from the protective rule of imprescriptibility of maintenance.

What this changes for you — concretely

This decision has important practical implications, whether you are a child of a hospitalised parent, or a real estate professional advising clients.

For children (maintenance debtors): If you receive a claim from a hospital for your parent's accommodation costs, you must check several things. First, was your parent truly in need? The hospital must prove that their resources (pension, etc.) did not cover the costs. Second, the hospital can only claim what you owe, based on your own income. For example, if you earn €2,000 per month and your brother earns €5,000, your contributions will differ. Finally, the hospital cannot claim sums dating back more than 5 years before the writ. Concretely, if your mother was hospitalised in Menton in 2018 and the hospital sues you in 2024, it can only claim costs from 2019 onwards.

For public health establishments: This decision requires you to act quickly. You cannot wait years to claim reimbursement, otherwise part of your claim may be time-barred. It is therefore advisable to identify maintenance debtors as soon as hospitalisation begins and to put them on notice promptly. undefined, I have come across cases where the hospital had let several years pass before suing, and the judges rejected part of the claim. In Nice, for example, a hospital lost €15,000 of its claim due to prescription.

For real estate professionals (notaries, estate agents): You may be faced with situations where a property must be sold to pay for a parent's hospitalisation costs. In this case, you should know that the hospital has no priority right over the property: it must act like any other creditor. The decision recalls that the maintenance obligation is a personal debt, not a real security. Thus, if you advise a family in Antibes whose mother is hospitalised, tell them that selling the property to pay the hospital is not compulsory, but that non-payment may lead to recovery proceedings.

If you are in this situation, you should challenge the amount claimed if you believe it does not correspond to your ability to pay. You can request an instalment plan or a reduction. The important thing is not to ignore the hospital's letters: silence amounts to acceptance and can lead to a default judgment.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Anticipate the maintenance obligation before hospitalisation: If your parents are ageing, discuss their financial situation with them. If their resources are insufficient, you can arrange a regular voluntary contribution. This avoids nasty surprises. For example, a family agreement in Menton can set a monthly amount that each child pays into a dedicated account.
• Respond to hospital letters without delay: As soon as you receive a reimbursement request, do not put it aside. Respond in writing, challenging it if necessary, or proposing a payment schedule. This interrupts the limitation period and shows your good faith. A simple email or registered letter is enough.
• Keep evidence of your parents' resources: The hospital must prove that your parent was in need. If you have bank statements, tax assessments, or pension statements, keep them. They can be used to show that the costs were covered, or to negotiate a reduction.
• Consult a lawyer as soon as the dispute looms: A simple summons can lead to a judgment ordering you to pay significant sums. A lawyer specialised in property law or family law can assess the validity of the claim and negotiate a settlement. In Antibes, I have obtained a 40% reduction of the debt for a client who had been sued without explanation.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a line of Court of Cassation judgments limiting the recourse of third parties against maintenance debtors. For example, in a decision of 10 February 2010 (No. 08-21.348), the Court had already held that the direct action of a third party (such as a hospital) against a maintenance debtor is subrogatory and not autonomous: the third party can only exercise the rights of the creditor. In other words, the hospital cannot claim more than what the parent could have claimed himself.

Another decision of 4 April 2013 (No. 12-14.512) had specified that the rule 'aliments do not fall into arrears' does not apply in subrogatory recourse. The 2015 decision confirms and reinforces this position. The trend is therefore clear: judges protect maintenance debtors against claims that are too old or disproportionate.

For the future, we can expect hospitals to be more diligent in their recoveries, and to individualise their claims better. Families, for their part, must be vigilant and not hesitate to contest. Current case law is favourable to them.

Summary and next steps

FAQ: frequently asked questions

1. Can a hospital claim my father's hospitalisation costs from me without my agreement? Yes, if it proves that your father was in need and that you are subject to the maintenance obligation. But the amount must be proportionate to your resources.
2. Can I refuse to pay if my father has assets? Yes, because the maintenance obligation presupposes a state of need. If your father has sufficient income or assets, the hospital cannot claim anything from you.
3. What is the limitation period for a hospital action? 5 years from each triggering event (each month of hospitalisation). Beyond that, the claim is time-barred.
4. What should I do if I receive a summons? Do not ignore it. Consult a lawyer within 15 days to prepare your defence. You can challenge the amount, invoke prescription, or request a payment deferral.
5. Can the hospital seize my house if I do not pay? Yes, if it obtains a judgment and you do not pay. But it must first prove your debt. Better to negotiate a payment plan before judgment.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →