Case Title: Wilson v. Aylward

Citation: 207 Kan. 254, 484 P.2d 1003

Docket Number: 45,954

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1971-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
207 Kan. 254 (1971)
484 P.2d 1003
LERONZO LaFAYETTE WILSON, Appellee,
v.
J.A. AYLWARD, Appellant.
No. 45,954

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 15, 1971.
Paul R. Kitch, argued the cause, and Gerrit H. Wormhoudt and Thomas D. Kitch, all of the firm of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, Wichita, and Walter A. Sawhill, of Sawhill & Southard, Wichita, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Ralph E. Gilchrist, of the firm of Gilchrist & Buck, Wichita, argued the cause, and Orval Fisher, of the firm of Michaud & Cranmer, Wichita, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, C.J.:
Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages in the amount of $200,000 for the alleged alienation of his wife's affections. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Defendant has appealed from a $50,000 judgment.
Highly summarized, the background of the matter is substantially as follows:
Plaintiff, Leronzo LaFayette Wilson, a negro, was a member of the Wichita fire department.
The woman in the case  also a negro  is Evelyn Wilson. She and plaintiff were first married in 1948. They were divorced in 1953. They were remarried in 1959.
Defendant, J.A. Aylward  a white man  was a wealthy Wichita businessman.
*255 In 1957 Evelyn was working as a waitress at a country club in Wichita of which defendant was a member. He was about 65 years of age, and she much younger. They were acquainted. She went to his office seeking a loan of several hundred dollars. The "loan" was made  but never repaid. At her solicitation they met at a Wichita motel on one or two occasions and indulged in sexual intercourse. This was repeated once or twice at defendant's downtown hotel room. In the meantime, Evelyn demanded large sums of money. Defendant paid in cash. The three or four personal "meetings" were in a thirty-day period in 1957  and, as stated  Evelyn and plaintiff were not remarried until 1959.
Under threats of exposure  Evelyn continued her demands for money. On occasions she went to defendant's office to secure it. At other times she sent some one  including her son. In a period of perhaps a year defendant paid her approximately $40,000 in cash. Her demands for money  under threats of exposure  continued  and defendant continued to pay  by checks. Up until 1967 these checks totaled approximately $65,000.
During this ten-year period defendant became somewhat of a mental case  suffering from "depression and severe anxiety reactions bordering on panic". He was hospitalized several times. Finally, through the efforts of his psychiatrist and attorneys, he stopped making payments to Evelyn in 1967  to await "developments".
In the meantime Evelyn had been living "high", and maintained large charge accounts at leading stores in Wichita. In February 1968 she sued plaintiff for divorce and left for California. Although following their remarriage in 1959 plaintiff and Evelyn maintained a joint checking account in a Wichita bank in which she deposited the large sums received from defendant  plaintiff claimed ignorance of the entire matter until he received an alleged anonymous telephone call late at night shortly after Evelyn left for California in which he was told of the "affair" between Evelyn and defendant. The next day he went to defendant's office, identified himself, and demanded $40,000, telling defendant that Evelyn had left Wichita with large unpaid accounts at local stores. Defendant refused, and referred plaintiff to his (defendant's) attorney.
In Evelyn's divorce action against plaintiff, at which she did not appear in person, he was granted a divorce on his cross-petition in November 1968.
*256 This action for alienation of affections was filed in April 1968 and was tried in May 1969.
Other than the oral in-court testimony of plaintiff, the evidence consisted of depositions and affidavits.
In her affidavit Evelyn stated that from 1959 through 1967 she and plaintiff maintained a joint checking account in a Wichita bank; that she deposited in the account the sums of money received from defendant; that at all times plaintiff wrote checks on the account and was aware of the amount in the account and where it came from. She further stated that at no time had she ever received any money from defendant for the purpose of encouraging, inducing or enticing her to leave and divorce plaintiff, and that the grounds of her divorce action against plaintiff were based on plaintiff's intolerable conduct toward her and their children.
Plaintiff denied all knowledge of what had been going on over the ten-year period until he received the anonymous telephone call above mentioned; he was aware of Evelyn's large expenditures during the period but assumed the money had come from her parents, and that right up until the time she sued him for divorce she had been affectionate toward him and "everything was normal". In the course of his cross-examination the following appears in the record:
"A. Take it any way you want it  it happened.
The testimony of defendant's physician-psychiatrist has been referred to.
The testimony of defendant need not be detailed. In it he admitted the three or four meetings with Evelyn during the thirty-day period back in 1957; admitted the payments made over the ten-year period, and stated that all payments were the result of threats of exposure and humiliation to him and his family.
In its decision the trial court  after reciting generally the facts as above related  found that plaintiff was innocent throughout the *257 whole affair; that defendant's conduct was wrongful and willful and in derogation of plaintiff's marital rights; that Evelyn could not have moved herself and children to California except for the financial help furnished by defendant over the period in question, and that plaintiff had suffered loss of marital affection and companionship of his children through the wrongful influence of defendant. The court further found 
and rendered judgment for $50,000.
Before discussing further the facts of this case we refer to what has been said by this court on the subject of actions for alienation of affections.
In Powers v. Sumbler, 83 Kan. 1, 110 Pac. 97, it was held:
In Roberts v. Dockstader, 144 Kan. 384, 61 P.2d 114, it was said:
In Curry v. Kline, 187 Kan. 109, 353 P.2d 508, the rule of the Powers and Roberts cases was followed, and it was said:
Without further elaboration of the details of this sorry mess  the entire picture is clear. The "morals" of the affair during the thirty-day period in 1957 when Evelyn was unmarried  of course are not to be condoned  but, for purposes of the precise questions presented  are beside the point. Immediately thereafter  and extending to 1967  the undisputed evidence is that defendant was threatened with exposure and humiliation to him and his family  unless he met her demands for money. He complied  to the tune of over $100,000!
Even though plaintiff be considered as innocent throughout the entire affair  as found by the trial court  he still is not relieved of the burden of establishing that defendant's conduct was the controlling cause that destroyed Evelyn's affection for him, and that the acts of defendant were done knowingly and intentionally for the purpose of alienating her affections. There is not one word of evidence to establish any such design  in fact, all is to the contrary. Her only concern was money  defendant's only concern was silence as to his 1957 indiscretions. Except for the occasions when she came to his office  for money  and chance meetings on the street  there was no personal contact between them following the thirty-day period in 1957.
Regardless of the label given to this bizarre affair  and whether it be denominated as blackmail, extortion or just a pure-and-simple "shakedown"  the situation presented is a good illustration of what this court may have had in mind in 1936 when in the Roberts case, *259 above, it classified actions for alienation of affections as being obnoxious to the public welfare.
In view of our conclusion, other matters in the briefs require no discussion.
The judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment for defendant.