Fitch v. Valentine
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01800-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01800-SCT ; 2005-CA-01800-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-19-2007 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Alienation of affections - Evidentiary errors - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Punitive damages - Remittitur Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB P.JJ., DIAZ AND CARLSON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: DICKINSON, J. JOINED IN PART BY GRAVES, J. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. EASLEY, J. WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL-TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-12-2005 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: Unanimous jury verdict against Appellant & jury awarded damages to Appellee. Court denied Appellant's Motions for JNOV & a new trial & remittitur. Case Number: M99-380 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JERRY FITCH, SR.
|
DION JEFFERY SHANLEY
S. DUKE GOZA |
||
| Appellee: | JOHNNY VALENTINE | MICHAEL ALFRED JACOB RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN |
|
|
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 affections - Evidentiary errors - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Punitive damages - Remittitur |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Valentine filed a civil complaint against Jerry Fitch, Sr., alleging various causes of action, including alienation of affections. A jury unanimously rendered a verdict against Fitch and awarded Valentine $642,000 in actual damages and $112,500 in punitive damages. Fitch appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Alienation of affections Fitch argues that the tort of alienation of affections should be abolished as a matter of public policy. In the interest of protecting the marriage relationship and providing a remedy for intentional conduct which causes a loss of consortium, the Court declines the invitation to abolish the common law tort of alienation of affections in Mississippi. Issue 2: Evidentiary errors Fitch argues that argument and comments upon the credibility of witnesses are improper when made in opening statement. According to Fitch, Valentine proceeded to publish to the jury what he obviously considered passed for a predicate from which impeachment may commence: unsworn allegations of the complaint, unsworn denials in the answer, answers to interrogatories, deposition testimony, and responses to request for admissions. The use of Fitch’s prior inconsistent statements in Valentine’s opening statement was permissible and the circuit court’s decision to overrule Fitch’s objection was not an abuse of discretion. Not only was the jury repeatedly informed that the content of the opening statements were not evidence, but Fitch’s prior inconsistent statements in these pleadings were developed during his testimony at trial. Fitch argues that the court erred in granting Valentine’s motion in limine to prevent Fitch from introducing evidence of Valentine’s adulterous conduct with Valentine’s wife at the inception of their relationship. Pursuant to M.R.E. 403, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting Valentine’s motion in limine. Fitch’s wrongful conduct was the issue in this case. The presence of a marriage relationship is necessary for the tort of alienation of affections to apply. Therefore, the time frame in which Valentine and his wife were married, not their pre-marriage conduct, was key. The meager probative value of evidence on the beginning of Valentine’s relationship with his wife was found to be outweighed by the undue prejudice it would create. In addition, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the introduction of evidence regarding the child born to Valentine following his divorce from his wife. The key time frame for the tort of alienation of affections is that of the marriage, within which this evidence clearly does not fit. Issue 3: Jury instructions Fitch’s objection to one jury instruction is procedurally barred as Fitch failed to object after the instruction was rephrased. He also objected to an instruction which stated “[y]ou should consider the following elements of damages as have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence in this case[.]” The damages awarded were therefore limited to those proximately resulting from Fitch’s wrongful acts during Valentine’s marriage. Granting such an instruction was proper and well within the circuit judge’s discretion. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence The commonly stated elements of the tort of alienation of affections are wrongful conduct of the defendant; loss of affection or consortium; and causal connection between such conduct and loss. The wrongful conduct of the defendant, when viewed in the light most favorable to Valentine, was satisfied by introduction of evidence supporting a finding that Fitch’s acts of persuasion, enticement, or inducement caused or contributed to an adulterous relationship between Fitch and Valentine’s wife, which subsequently was admitted. The judgment of divorce provided that “[t]he evidence presented in open [c]ourt clearly establishes that [Valentine] is entitled to a divorce on the grounds of adultery.” Valentine testified his marriage failed because his wife couldn’t resist all the money, and, absent Fitch, his marriage would have remained intact. This satisfies the additional element of persuasion, enticement, or inducement, when viewed in the light most favorable to Valentine. Valentine stated that he and his wife had regular sexual relations , shared a joint checking account, ate meals together, never separated, and that he loved his wife. Only after his wife gave birth to a child of which Valentine was not the father did Valentine begin to notice changes in her. The loss of affection or consortium was unquestionably present. Issue 5: Punitive damages Fitch argues that the penal component of the award offends substantive due process insofar as it sanctions punishment for constitutionally permissive conduct. This issue is procedurally barred as no due process challenge to the punitive damage award was raised before the circuit court. In addition, the punitive damages awarded in the case were only a fraction of compensatory damages awarded, hardly rising to the level of gross excess. Issue 6: Remittitur There being no evidence that either the jury or trier of fact was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or the damages were contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying remittitur. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
