Fitch v. Valentine
Supreme Court of Mississippi

Facts * Valentine, the plaintiff, and Sandra were married in 1993. The couple had a son together in 1997. During the spring of 1997, Sandra began working for Fitch Realty division of Fitch Oil Company. * According to Fitch, when Sandra worked for Fitch Oil Company, Sandra earned around $400 per week in cash. * Sandra testified that an adulterous affair with Fitch, the defendant, began late 1997 or early 1998. Fitch was aware that Sandra was married but continued the adulterous affair. * Valentine testified that his marriage to Sandra was normal prior to late 1998 and early 1999 when the couple shared a joint checking account, ate meals together, and engaged in sexual relations. * In June of 1998 Sandra became pregnant and the plaintiff believed the child to be his own placing his name on the child’s birth certificate as the father. * After the child was born, the plaintiff started noticing changes in Sandra and started to find “two or three hundred here and three or four hundred there, a thousand, $1,100 in different places.” * Fitch testified that he never paid Sandra to date or marry him, or to entice her away from Valentine. * On August 28, 1999, the plaintiff filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery. * Sandra denied “selling her affections” and testified that her affections for Valentine were absent before the affair with Fitch due to a gambling and drinking problem. * On December 21, 1999, the plaintiff filed suit against Fitch alleging alienation of affections. * The defendant denied having had sexual relations with Sandra, being the father of the child, or giving Sandra any money. * The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded him $642,000 in actual damages and $112,500 in punitive damages against the defendant. * Following the trial, the defendant filed his consolidated motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, new trial, and remittitur. The defendant requested the circuit court to abolish the tort of alienation of affections. * Fitch contends that since the divorce rate continues to escalate in Mississippi, the institution of marriage has already been devalued and the justification for this tort’s continued existence is outdated and discredited. * Valentine asserts that the court should continue to allow alienation of affection cases against third parties who cause the destruction and breakdown of the marital bound and family relationship. * The appellate court found that the trial court erred in denying Fitch’s motion for JNOV. The jury’s verdict was incorrect and not based upon legally sufficient evidence to prove an alienation of affections. Judgment was rendered in favor of Fitch.
Parties Contentions * Plaintiff: * Valentine testified that the marriage failed because Sandra “couldn’t resist all the money and that absent Fitch’s interference, the marriage would have remained intact.” * Valentine filed suit against Fitch alleging alienation of affections. * Valentine asserts that the court should continue to allow alienation of affection cases against third parties who cause the destruction and breakdown of the marital bound and family relationship. * Defendant: * Fitch denied having had sexual relations with Sandra, being the father of the child, or giving Sandra any money. * Fitch argues that the court should abolish the tort of alienation of affections as a matter of public policy * Fitch contends that since the divorce rate continues to escalate in Mississippi, the institution of marriage has already been devalued and the justification for this tort’s continued existence is outdated and discredited

Issues * 1. Whether the tort of alienation of affections should be abolished on public policy grounds * 2. Whether the jury verdict was conflicting to the overwhelming weight of the evidence

Holding * 1. No, a majority of the court wishes it to remain viable. The majority set forth the requirement that alienation of affections claims may be maintained only where the defendant can be shown to have committed a wrongful act which served to induce or entice a spouse to abandon the marriage relationship. * 2. Yes, the Court established the required elements of an action for alienation of affections: (1) wrongful conduct of the defendant, (2) loss of affection or consortium, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the loss. The trial court erred in denying Fitch’s motion for JNOV because the jury’s verdict was incorrect and not based upon legally sufficient evidence to prove an alienation of affections.