Hancock v. Watson
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00413-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-00413-COA2005-CT-00413-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-12-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-09-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Alienation of affection - Choice of law - Statute of limitations Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Dismissal; Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE; Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. APPELLANT SOUGHT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, WHICH WAS GRANTED. Case Number: 251-04-343CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ROGER LIONEL HANCOCK |
CHUCK MCRAE,
WILLIAM B. KIRKSEY |
||
| Appellee: | DAVID STEVEN WATSON | ROBERT D. JONES, HENRY PALMER, EDDIE BRIGGS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Alienation of affection - Choice of law - Statute of limitations |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Watson filed a complaint against Roger Hancock, alleging alienation of affection. Hancock filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for a more definite statement. The court ordered Watson to file an amended complaint that more specifically stated the facts upon which Watson based his claim. Following the filing of the amended complaint, Hancock filed a second motion to dismiss. The court denied both motions to dismiss. Hancock filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court which the Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | David and Lori Watson, both residents of Tennessee, were married in 1989. According to the allegations of David Watson’s amended complaint, Hancock began a sexual affair with Lori in 1999. The affair ended in 2000 without Watson ever knowing that the affair existed. Lori continued in her marriage to Watson, giving birth to the couple’s third child in August 2002. While Lori was six months pregnant with the couple’s fourth child in 2003, Watson learned of the affair. Watson filed for divorce, and a Tennessee court granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. Despite the divorce, the couple continued to reside together in the house that had served as the marital residence and to share responsibilities in raising their four children. Hancock argues that the trial court should have applied Tennessee law which has abolished alienation of affection as a viable cause of action. Alternatively, Hancock argues that even if Mississippi law applied, the statute of limitations has expired. Watson argues that the trial court properly applied Mississippi law because Watson is bringing a claim for a tort that occurred in Mississippi and that he filed the claim within one year of his discovery of the affair. Choice of law analysis requires the court to determine whether the conflicting laws are substantive or procedural; to classify the substantive area of law – contract, tort, or property – applicable to the conflicting laws, as each area of law has its own choice of law provisions; and to apply the appropriate analytical provisions to the conflict. In this case, the conflicting laws are substantive, as the outcome will determine whether Watson has a viable cause of action. Alienation of affection claims are tort actions. The test adopted by the Mississippi Supreme Court to resolve tort choice of law questions is the “most significant relationship test.” Because of the limited facts available in the record, the Court is unable to complete the conflict of law analysis due to the lack of factual information available from the record. An alienation of affection claim requires a finding of the wrongful conduct of the defendant; loss of affection or consortium; and causal connection between such conduct and loss. To determine where the injury or the conduct causing the injury occurred would require an in-depth inquiry into the scope of the relationship between Lori and Hancock – including, for example, the manner and frequency and content of their communications outside of their face-to-face meetings. The record does not provide such additional information. Therefore, the case is remanded for discovery. With regard to the statute of limitations, alienation of affection is an intentional tort with no specifically prescribed statute of limitations; therefore, the three-year statute of limitations applies. Under Mississippi law, a claim of alienation of affection accrues when the alienation or loss of affection is finally accomplished. Due to the procedural posture of this case, the Court is unable to determine when the cause of action accrued. On remand, the Court instructs the judge to direct the parties to engage in discovery that will ascertain when the alienation or loss of affection was finally accomplished. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
