With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hospital v. Chisholm, 342 N.C. 616, 621, 467 S.E.2d 88, 90-91 (1996) (recognizing the modernization of the “Doctrine of Necessaries” “to impose liability on a gender-neutral basis”). To establish a prima facie case “for the recovery of expenses incurred in providing necessary medical services to the other spouse,” the party seeking to apply the doctrine must show: (1) medical services were provided to the spouse; (2) the medical services were necessary for the health and well-being of the receiving spouse; (3) the person against whom the action is brought was married to the person to whom the medical services were provided at the time such services were provided; and (4) the payment for the necessaries has not been made. Baptist Hospitals, 319 N.C. at 353-54, 354 S.E.2d at 474-75 (<HOLDING>). In Baptist Hospitals and Forsyth Memorial,

A: holding wife abandoned her attempts to seek sanctions against husband and husband was not placed on notice that those issues would be raised again by guardian ad litem
B: holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted
C: holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband
D: holding that a wife could be liable for inviting a coworker to a remote cabin where he was attacked by her husband
B.