U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Limit Damages in Alienation of Affections

Story >

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Limit Damages

Special Report - November 2, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to limit the amount of damages that can be collected by a wronged spouse in an action for alienation of affections. Alienation of affections is a common law remedy whereby a married person can sue a third party who has intentionally “alienated” the affections of his or her spouse. In most cases, this “alienation of affections” results in the breakup of the marriage. It has been abolished in all but seven states—Mississippi, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and North Carolina.

The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the awarding of $756,5000 to a plumber who sued his wife’s millionaire boss for alienating her affections and causing her to leave their marriage. According to legal documents filed in the case, Sandra Fitch was married to plumber Johnny Valentine, when Sandra Fitch began working for Jerry Fitch’s real estate firm. The affair between Sandra and Jerry Fitch resulted in her becoming pregnant and bearing a child. When Mr. Valentine learned from genetic testing that he was not the baby’s father, he sued for divorce and then sued Jerry Fitch, who has a net worth of $22 million, under Mississippi law for alienation of affections. Mr. Valentine, whose ex-wife eventually married her boss, won a judgment against Mr. Fitch for $642,000 in actual damages and $112,500 in punitive damages. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the verdict.

Mr. Fitch has asked U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to stay the state mandate, while he is preparing to file a Writ of Certiorari to appeal it. In the stay motion, Mr. Fitch’s lawyers argue that the punitive damages are not allowed under Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a Texas sodomy statute, because the state cannot penalize private intimate conduct between consenting adults. The Lawrence case extended Constitutional protection for same-sex intimate relationships, while Mr. Fitch is seeking Constitutional protection for heterosexual adulterous intimate relationships. Because punitive damages require a showing of malice, Mr. Fitch argues that an adulterous relationship cannot provide the malice requirement, since intimate sexual relationships are protected under Lawrence. He concludes: “Although it is unclear whether the conduct upon which the punitive damage award is predicated (simple adultery) is or is not unlawful in Mississippi, as argued previously, it is protected by the Constitution, nonetheless….[t]here is simply no rational basis for state sanctioned punishment of intimate association between consenting adults.” The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet taken action on the stay request.

North Carolina Family Policy Council Attorney Jere Royall said, “The common law action for alienation of affections is a deterrent to adulterous relationships that tear apart families and hurt children. Placing a limit on the damages that a wronged spouse can recover runs counter to the purpose of the action—to protect the institution of marriage and to provide a proper legal remedy for a spouse when a third party has interfered with their marriage.”