### An Apri l 29, 1998, f inanci alst atement o f F itch reve al ed a net worth of ne arly $22 1 

### mi ll ion. I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 1 8 0 0 - S CT J ERRY F I TCH, S R. v. J OHNNY VA L EN T

I NE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 12/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARS HALL COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: DI ON J E F F E RY S HANL E Y S . DUKE GOZ A ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: M I CHAEL AL F RED J ACOB RA L P H E DW I N C HAP M AN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S - OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 19/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . B efo re this C o u rt tod ay is a classic “h e said ”/“sh e said ”/“the p ara m o u r said ” ca se. It comm ence d w hen J ohnny V al ent i ne ( “V al ent i ne”) f i l ed a c i vi l c om pl ai nta gai ns tJ erry Fi t ch, Sr . ( “Fi t ch”) i n t he C i r cui tC our tof M ar s hal l C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , averr i ng var i ous caus es o f ac ti o n , inclu d ing ali en ati o n o f affec ti o n s. V alen ti n e is a p lum b er, Fit ch is a m il li o n aire
w ho ow ns var i ous bus i nes s es , pr i m ar i l y i nvol vi ng oi l and r eal es t at e. A tthe conc l us i on of 1 a tr i al on the mer i t s , a j ury unani m ous l y r ender ed a v erdi ctagai ns tFi t ch and a w ar ded

### Now Sandra Fi tc h, having m ar ri ed Fi tc h subs eque nt t o her di vorc e f rom Val entine . 2 

### Co-wor ker Sus an Fle ming, who wasa ls o a pe rs onalf

ri end of Sandra and thefor me r 3 

### bookkeeper

at Fit ch Oi l Com

pany, te stif

ie d that Sandra

cl ai me d shere ce ive d only $500 a mont h in c as h for

her work. 2 V al ent i ne $642, 000 i n actual damages and $112, 500 i n puni t i ve dam ages . T her eaf t er , Fi t ch f i l ed a cons ol i dat ed m ot i on f orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , ne w tr i al , and re m itt itu r, w h ich th e c irc u it co u rt d e n ied . F itch h a s file d th is a p p e a l. FACTS ¶2 . T he r ecor d re f

l ect s t hatV al ent i ne a nd Sa nd r a D a y ( “ Sa nd r a ” ) w e r e marr i ed on 2 February 12, 1 99 3. In 1995, the coupl e had a s on t ogether , J . V . I n the s pr i ng of 1997, San dr a b e ga n w orki ng a s a r e a l t orf orthe Fi t c h Rea l ty di vi s i on o f Fi t c h O i l C om pany and earned ar ound $400 a w eek i n cas h, bas ed upon hercomm i s s i ons , acco rdi ng t o Fi t ch. 3 Sandr a t es t i f

i ed thatt he adul t er ous af f ai rw i th Fi t ch bega n i n l at e 1997 orear l y 1998. 

### Ac c ordingt o F i t c h, ther e l at i on s hip c omm e nc e d in 1 99 8. Fi t c h te s t i f i e d t o k no wingthat Sandra was m ar

ri ed to Val entineand that t he c ouplehad a

chi ld t ogether . I t wa s e st abl is hed at tria l t hat Fit ch t es ti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that hedid not careif his af fa ir with Sandra m ight af fe ct her marria ge t o Val entine . ¶3. V al ent i ne t es t i f

i ed t hat his m arr i age t o Sandr a w as “norm al ” pr i or t o l at e 1998 and e a rly 1 9 9 9 . T h e c o u p le sh a re d a jo in t ch e c k in g a c c o u n t, ate m e a ls to g e th e r, an d e n g a g e d in s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s “ [ l ] i k e n o r ma l c o u p l e s ” u n t i l th a tt i me . I n J u n e o f 1 9 9 8 , S a n d r a b e c a me pr egnant . D ur i ng the f

al l of 1998, V al ent i ne s us pect ed Sandr a w as ha vi ng a n a f f ai r , buts he

### Co nv ersely, S andra testified that Valentine kn ew of h er affair withFitchat this time 4 

### andkn ew th at the ch ild mayhav e beenFitch ’s. Val entinete stif

ie d that Sandra

camehomewith a ne w Je ep Che roke e and hehad no 5 

### idea where sh e ob tainedthe fund s to p urch ase it. 3 d en ied an y su ch w ron g d o ing . In F eb rua ry 1 9 9 9 , a d au g h ter, K . V . , w as p resu m p ti v ely b o rn 4 t o the m ari t al uni on. V al ent i ne t es t i f i ed that , atthatt i m e, he bel i eved K . V . w as hi s chi l d. H e w a s p re se n t at the h o sp ital fo r K .V .’s d e liv e ry an d w a s liste d a s K .V .’s fa th e r o n h e r b irth cert i f i cat e; and he l oved and c ar ed f orK . V . A ccor di ng t o V al enti ne, “a fe w w eeks af t er [ K . V . ] w as born” he be gan t o not i ce c hanges i n Sandr a. ¶ 4 . 

### At tri al , Fi tc h te stif ie d that hewas awarethat K. V. wa s his chil d “a month or two af te r she w as bo rn[,]” eventh ou ghinth e div orce p roceed ing s from h is wife o f thirty -five y ears, he a dmi tt ed heknew K. V. wa s hi s c hil d threeor f our days a ft er

her bir th. ¶5. O ne ni ght i n A ugus t 1999, Sandr a w as not hom e by 10: 30 p. m . , and V al ent i ne dr ove t owar d Fi t c h’ s c a bi n l oo ki ng f orh e r . A f

t e ro bs e r vi ng Sa nd r a d r i vi ng o n H i gh w ay 4, V alen ti n e fl ag g ed h er d o w n . V alen ti n e testi fi ed that u p o n b eing co n fron ted a b o u t an a ffair , Sandr a once agai n deni ed any w r ongdoi ng and cam e hom e w i th hi m . T her eaf t er , V al ent i ne re p e a ted ly req u e ste d tha t S a n d ra q u it h e r jo b a t F itch R e a lty , b u t sh e c o n sis ten tly re fu se d to do s o. D ur i ng thi s t i m e f r ame, V al ent i ne t es t i f

i ed t o f i ndi ng “ [ t ] w o orthr ee hundr ed her e and thr ee orf

ourhundr ed ther e, a thous and, $1, 100 i n di f f er entpl ace s ” ar oun d t hei rhom e. S an d ra c lai m ed sh e m ad e this m o n ey at w o rk. V alen ti n e te stifie d that the c ash w as m o re t han he ha d p r e vi ou s l y o bs e r ve d h e re a rni ng . Sa nd r a ’ s c o- w orke rSus a n Fl e mi ng t e s t i f i ed that , pr i ort o the di vor ce, Sandr a t ol d he rthatFi t ch had gi ven her$8, 000 t o buy a new J eep C h ero k ee , w h ich sh e ac q u ir ed so o n there after. 

### Fl e m i nga l s o t e s t i f i e d that s ho rt ly a f t e r K. V. 5

### 4

was born, Sandra t old he r that Fit ch ha d purc has ed a

baby be d, hi gh c hair, ba

by se at , ba

by cl othe s and othe r ba

by it em s f

or K. V. Fi tc h re adi ly a dmi tt ed t o giv ing mone y to Sandra betw een Feb ruary1 99 9 andAug ust 1 99 9. F it ch , ho w ev er, test if ied tha t h e n ev er pa id S an d ra t o dat e orm arr y hi m , ort o ent i ce he raw ay f r om V al ent i ne. ¶ 6 . On Au g u s t2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , Va l e n t i n e a n d S a n d r a s e p a r a t e d . I n S e p t e mb e r1 9 9 9 , DNA t es t i ng concl us i vel y excl uded V al ent i ne as K . V . ’ s bi ol ogi cal f ather . N onethel es s , V al ent i ne still o ffe re d to ra ise K .V . a s h is o w n ch ild if S a n d ra w o u ld en d the ad u lter o u s a ff a ir w ith Fi t ch. Sandr a r ef

us ed. ¶7. V al ent i ne f

i l ed f or di vor ce on O ct ober 28, 1999, and the di vor ce decr ee w as ent er ed on N ovember23, 1999. T he decr ee s peci f i cal l y s t at ed that“[ t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed i n open [c] o u rtclea rl y estab li sh es th at [ V alen ti n e] is en ti tl ed t o a divo rce on the g rou n d s o f ad ultery .” ( E m phas i s added) . Pr i ort o the di vor ce, V al ent i ne t es t i f i ed thatSandr a neve rt ol d hi m t hat s he di d notl ov e hi m ortha ts he w a nt e d a di vo r c e . H e f urthe rt e s t i f

i e d tha tthe marr i a ge f ai l ed bec aus e Sandr a “c oul dn’ tre s i s tal l t he m oney[ , ] ” and thatabs entFi t ch’ s i nt er f er ence , th e m a rria g e w o u ld h a v e re m a in e d in tac t. ¶8. A s can be expec t ed, S and ra den i ed “sel l i ng [ her ] af f ect i ons ” and t es t i f

i ed that her af f ect i ons f orV al ent i ne w er e abs ent befor e the adul t er ous af f ai rw i th Fi t ch comm ence d. Ac c o r d i n g t o h e rt e s t i mo n y , s h e l o v e d Va l e n t i n e wh e n th e y f i r s tma rr i e d . By th e t i me J . V. w as born, how ever , Sandr a s ai d t he mar r i age w as onl y “okay. ” She s t at ed: [ b ] e f o r e h i s g a mb l i n g p r o b l e m, J o h n n y l o v e d t o b e wi th h i s b u d d i e s . He w oul d notcome hom e f r om w or k. H e w oul d dr i nk. T her e’ s been oc cas i ons w h e re I’ v e g o n e lo o k in g fo r Jo h n n y w h e n h e w a s w ith h is b u d d ies , an d h is

### Val entinedeni ed drinking to an ext ent that i t int er fere d wi th his m ar

ri ageor j ob, and 6 

### furth er testified th at he d id n o t recall S an dra co nfro ntin g h im abo ut g oin g o ut w ith h is friend s. Valentine testified that he didnot recall Sandra confro ntin g him ab out gamb lingin

7 

### thi s, or any othe r, ins tance . Des pit e the c laim that Va le ntine’ s gambl ing instigate d Sandra’ s loss o f affection , she failedto o ffer anyevid ence o f gamb lingdeb ts. 5 re m a rk w a s, I e m b a rra ss e d h im b y c o m in g to w h e re h e w a s to try to g e t h im to c o m e h o m e to b e th e h u s b a n d th a t h e s h o u ld b e .[ ] 6 Sandr a f ur thert es t i f

i ed t hat , att hatt i m e, s he “w as s t i l l , obvi ous l y, i n l ove w i th hi m . I tr i ed t o ge thi m t o c hange and be di f f er ent , but. . . he di dn’ t . ” Sandr a s ai d the br eaki ng p oi nt came i n J anuary 1996, w hen s he w entt o a c as i no l ooki ng f orV al ent i ne. She cl ai m s t o have told h im that if

h e d id n o t l ea v e the ca sino at th at m o m e n t th e n th e ir m arriage w as o v er. W h en h e did not l eave, Sand ra s t at es that “I didn’tcare i f he w ent every ni gh t , and that’s
w h e n o u r m a rria g e w a s o v e r[,] ” a lth o u g h s h e fu rth e r te stifie d th a t th e ir se x u a l re latio n sh ip 7 di d notef

f ect i vel y end unt i l 1997 or1998. A ccor di ng t o Sandr a, the coupl e “s epar at ed [ on] s ever al o c c a s i on s a bo ut[ ga mbl i ng ] , a nd h e woul d pr omi s e tha th e woul d ge th e l p, a nd he di dn’ t. . . . ” V al ent i ne deni ed havi ng a gam bl i ng pr obl em or thatthe coupl e eve rs epar at ed. ¶9. Sandr a as s ert ed that the adul t er ous r el at i ons hi p w i th Fi t ch, w hi ch s he cl ai m s t o have i ni t i at ed, w as caus ed by h er unhappy mar r i age t o V al ent i ne. Fur therm or e, w hi l e s he and Fi t ch enga ged i n s ex tw o orthr ee t i m es a w eek, s he mai nt ai ned thatthe adul t er ous s exual act i vi ty had no ef

f ecton heral l eged none xi s t entdes i r e t o have s ex w i th V al ent i ne. ¶10. O n D ece m ber 21, 1999, V al ent i ne f i l ed s ui t agai ns t Fi t ch al l egi ng var i ous caus es of act i on, i ncl udi ng al i enat i on of af f ect i ons . I n F i t ch’ s answ er , re s pons e t o V al ent i ne’ s f i r s ts et of i nt err ogat or i es , and r es pons e t o V al ent i ne’ s f i r s ts etof r eques t s f

oradmi s s i on, f

i l ed w hen

### In ame nded r es ponse s fi le d s ix mont hs late r, on theday be for e hi s deposi ti on, Fi tc h 8 

### a dm i tt e d t o h avings e xu a lr e l at i on s wi th S andr aand be i ngthef

athe r of K. V. Val entinefi le d a moti on to strikethe por ti on of Fi tc h’s reply a ddre ss ing t he a boli ti on 9 

### of the tor t of al ie nation of af

fe ctions . The circ uit

court grant ed Va le ntine’ s m oti on to s trike . 6 K . V . w as m or e than one year old, Fi t ch deni ed havi ng had s exual r el at i ons w i th Sandr a, bei ng the f

atherof K . V . , orgi vi ng Sandr a any monet ary s uppor tbeyond hers al ary. 8 ¶11. Fol l ow i ng tr i al , the j ury unani m ous l y f ound forV al ent i ne and aw ar ded hi m $642, 000 i n actual damages and $112, 500 i n puni t i ve dam ages agai ns tF i t ch. O n A pr i l 12, 2005, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed j udgm entagai ns tFi t ch and i n f avorof V al ent i ne “f

orthe t ot al s um of $ 7 5 4 , 5 0 0 an d interest th ere o n in the am o u n t of 8 % p er a n n u m an d all co sts . . . . ” T h ere after, F it ch fi led h is co n so li d ated m o ti o n for j u d g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the ju ry v erd ict(“JN O V ”), n e w t r i a l , a n d r e mi t t i tu r . F o l l o wi n g Va l e n t i n e ’ s r e s p o n s e , F i t c h ’ s r e p l y f o rth e f i r s tt i me r eques t ed the ci r cui tcourtt o abol i s h the t or tof al i enati on of af f ect i ons . Fol l ow i ng a

9 h e a rin g , the c irc u it co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: [t] h e ju ry ’s v e rd ict . . . se e m e d to b e a lo t o f m o n e y to m e ; b u t if I c o rre c tly i ns truct ed the j ury on t he el ement s of thei rdamages and i f

the j ury w as ent i t l ed t o cons i deronce they arri ved at a c oncl us i on aboutl i abi l i ty, cons i der ed the e le m e n ts th a t I in s tru c te d th e m o n , I can’ tsec ond- gues s them , don’t have the author i t y to do s o, don’t

w antt o do s o. I

t ’s the j ur y’s j ob t o es tabl is h the value o f th e lo ss a n d

th e y ’v e d o n e so a n d

I c a n n o t sa

y th e a m o u n t o

f th e v e rd ict is s uch t o j us t i

f y the C our tgr ant i ng the m ot i on to r em i tthe ve r di ct . T h e C o u rt i s going t o d eny al l m oti on s. (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). O n S e p tem b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , F itch filed h is n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UES ¶1 2 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: (1 ) W h e th e r th e to rt o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s s h o u ld b e a b o lish e d o n p u b lic po l i cy g round s.

### 7

(2) W hetherthe cir cuitcou rtcom m i t t ed ev i den t i ary error s. ( 3) W hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n i ns truct i ng the j ury. ( 4) W hetherthe j ury ver di ctw as contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . (5) W hetherthe p un i t i ve d am ages aw ard vi olat es due p rocess . ( 6) W hetherthi s C our ts houl d or dera r emi t t i turof the aw ar d i n thi s cas e. A N A L Y S IS I . W het her t he t ort of al i enat i on of

af f ecti on s s houl d be abol i s hed on p u b l i c p oli cy g rou n d s. ¶13 . F i t ch argu es tha t t h is C o u rtsh o u ld aboli sh t he tor tof al i enati on of af fect i on s as a m at t er of pu bli c po l i cy. F i t ch st at es: [ t ] he adver s ar i al pos i t i ons t aken i n thi s l i t i gat i on ove rthe i nt ensel y p ers onal and pri vate m at t ers of [ V al enti ne] and S and ra cert ai n ly d oes no tserve as a s hi ni ng exampl e t o t he ci t i zens of M ar s hal l C ounty thatm arr i age a s an in s titu tio n m u s t b e p re s e rv e d . F i t ch f r ames t he t r i al as a “c l as s i c m or al i ty pl ay” w i th “[ t ] he hapl es s vi ct i m ; hi s w i f e’ s vi r tue sto len b y th e ric h v ill a in .” F itch c o n ten d s th a t sin c e th e d iv o rc e ra te c o n tin u e s to e sc a late in M i s s i s s i ppi , the i ns t i tut i on of m arr i age ha s al r eady been dev al ued and the j us t i f i cat i on f or thi s t or t ’ s cont i nued exi s t ence i s out dat ed and di s cr edi t ed. ¶14. T o the contr ary, V al ent i ne as s ert s thatthi s Court“s houl d cont i nue t o al l ow al i enat i on of af f ect i on cas es agai ns tthi r d part i es w ho caus e the des truct i on and br eakdow n of the m a rital b o n d a n d fa m ily re latio n sh ip .” V a len tin e fu rth e r c o n ten d s th a t “[t]h e fo c u s o f th is C our ts houl d be t o c ont i nue t o al l ow the vi abi l i ty of the t or tw hi ch i m pos es l i abi l i ty . . . [ and d e te rs th ir d p a rt ie s ] fr o m in te n tio n a lly in te rf e ri n g w ith a m a rr ia g e .” ¶ 1 5 . T h e to rt o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s w a s re c o g n ize d in M iss iss ip p i a s e a rly a s 1 9 2 6 in McR ae v. R obinson , 145 M i s s . 191, 110 So. 504 ( 1926) . I n Ca m p v. R o b e rts , 462 So. 2dT he t or tof a l i enat i on of

a f f ect i ons i s equal l y appl i cabl e t o w om en as m en, avoi di ng 10 a n y a rc h a ic n o tio n th a t a w if e is th e p ro p e rt y o f h e r h u s b a n d . See K irk v. K och , 607 So. 2d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). 

### I c annot adopt theposi ti on of a ma

jorit y of s tate s and minim iz e this ac tivit y whic h 11 

### the leg islature h as defin ed as a crime ag ainst p ub li c morals an d d ecency , anddeclaredits pena lt y com parabl e t o si mi lar c onduct betwe en a te ac her

and pupil or

a guardi an and ward. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-29- 1 et se q . The Legi sl at

urehas not s ee n fi t t o join thethrongs who say the sear e only “a ff airs of the he art, ” “ fl ings,” or “ st epping out, ” a s a me ans of attachin g v alidityto su ch co nduct. 8 726, 727 ( M i s s . 1985) , thi s Courthe l d “[ w ] her e a hus band [ w i f e] [ ] i s w r ongf

ul l y depr i ved 10
o f h is ri g h ts to th e ‘s e rv ic e s a n d c o m p a n io n s h ip a n d c o n s o rt iu m o f h is [h e r] w if e [h u s b a n d ],’ h e [she ] h as a ca u se o f ac ti o n ‘ag ains t on e w h o h as in terfered w ith h is [ h er] d o m e stic r el at i ons . ’ ” Id . at727 ( ci t i ng W alterv. W

il s on , 2 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 9 7 , 5 9 8 ( M is s . 1 9 6 9 ), over r ul ed i n par ton othergr ounds ; S au n ders v. A l ford , 607 So. 2d 1214, 1219 ( M i s s . 1992) ) . W i thout ques t i on, M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s r ecogni t i on of the t or tof

al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons pl ace s i tamong t he m in o ri ty o f s ta te s . See Hel s el v. N oel l s ch , 1 0 7 S .W .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (M o . 2 0 0 3 ) ( B e n to n , J ., di s s ent i ng) ( the others t at es ar e I l l i noi s , H aw ai i , N ew M exi co, N or th C ar ol i na, South Dako t a, and U t ah) . H ow ever , in his speci al concurr ence i n B la n d v. H ill , 73 5 S o. 2d 41 4 (M i ss. 1999) , C hi ef

J us t i ce ( then J us t i ce) Sm i th w i s el y r es ponded t o the “eve rybody el s e i s doi ng i t , s o s houl d I ” vi ew , by s t at i ng: [ w ] hil e I agr ee thati tappea r s s oci ety’ s m or al val ues have c hanged dur i ng m odern t i m es , I do notbel i eve M i s s i s s i ppi s houl d getaboar d thi s runaw ay tra in . I w o u ld a ls o n o t tak e a w a y a n o ffe n d e d sp o u se ’s o n ly leg a l m e a n s to s e e k r e dr e s s i n ou rc ou r t s f orthe wr on gf

ul c on du c to f

a thi r d par t y w ho w i l f ul l y and i nt ent i onal l y i nt er f er es i n and ai ds i n des tr oyi ng a mar r i age. Id . at 42 2 (S m ith , J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ). 11

### 9

¶1 6. I n r et ai ni ng the t ort , thi s Cour t ha s s t a t e d tha t “ the pu rpo s e of a c a us e of a c t i on f or al i enat i on of

af f ect i on i s the ‘ pr ot ect i on of the l ove, soci ety, com pani ons hi p, and comf or tt hat f or m the f oundat i on of

a m arr i age . . . . ’ ” Id . at417 ( quot i ng S au n ders , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d at 12 1 5 ). “The r i ghts oughtt o be pr ot ect ed i s thatof cons or t i um . ” S au n ders , 6 07 S o. 2d at1215. J us t i ce Smi th’ s s peci al concurrence i n Bland expl ai ned the j us t i f

i cat i on and nee d f

or cont i nued r ecogni t i on of the t or tof

al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons , s t at i ng: [ s ] houl d an i ndi vi dual be al l ow ed t o i ntrude upon a marr i age t o s uch an e xt ent as t o caus e i tt o come t o an end? D oes a s pous e have a val uabl e i nt er es ti n a ma r r i a g e th a ti s wo r th y o f p r o t e c t i o n f

r o m th e i n tru d i n g t h i r d p a r ty ? I n my v ie w , th e a n s w e r t o b o th q u e s tio n s is in th e a ff ir m a tiv e . T

h e tra d iti o n a l fa m ily is und er such a t tack b oth l oca l l y an d n ati on all

y these days tha tthis C ou rt s hould notr etr eat

now f rom the sou nd vi ew of the tor tof

al i enat i on of af f e c t i on s e s

po us e d by this Cour ti n S a u n ders a s e n tit lin ga sp o u se to "pr ot ect i on of

the love, s oci et

y, com pani ons hi

p, and com

f or ttha tf or m the fo u n da tio n o

f a m a r r ia g e ."[ S au n ders , 607 So. 2d at1215] (quoti ng N or ton v. Mac f ar lane , 8 1 8 P .2 d 8 , 1 2 (U tah 1 9 9 1 )); see al so Ho rn e r v . B

y rn e tt , 511 S. E . 2d 342 ( N . C . C t . A pp. 1999). I do notbel i eve thatunderthe compel l i ng f act s of thi s part i cul arcas e thi s C our ts houl d hol d thatthe doctr i ne of al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons has out l i ved i t s usef ul nes s as a det err entpr ot ect i ng the m a rital re latio n sh ip o f a h u sb a n d a n d w ife in c a se s w h e re th e fa c ts c lea rly w a rra n t. Bland , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 2 (S m ith , J., sp e c ially c o n c u rrin g ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In a d d iti o n to p ro te c tin g th e m a rr ia g e re la tio n s h ip a n d its s a n c tity , s ee id . at418, the t or tof al i enat i on of aff ect i on s al so provides an ap propri at e rem edy forint enti on al co nd uct w hich causes a l oss of cons or t i um . T he di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n Hel s el s um m ar i zed thi s pos i t i on, s t at i ng: [i] n to rt c a se s w h e re a s p o u se is in ju re d , th e o th e r s p o u se o fte n h a s a se p a ra te c la im fo r l o s s o f c o n s o rt iu m . P ow el l v. A m er i can Motors Cor p. , 834 S. W . 2d 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 (M o . b an c 1 9 9 2 ). M o st of thes e losse s a re c au sed b y a d efe n d an t’ s n eg lig e n ce . In a li en ati o n o f affec ti o n – an inten ti o n al t o rt– a d efe n d an t’ s in te n tio n a l c o n d u c t c a u s e s th e lo s s . See G ibs on [ v. Fro w e in , ] 400 S. W . 2d [ 418, ] 421 [ ( M o. banc 1966) ] . I ti s i ncons i s t ent[ i f ] the l aw c om pens at es f or

### On e dissent sug gests th at “these su its inev itablydo more to hurt families thanto 12 

### help them. ” I find m orepe rs uas ivethe count er -argum ent that dam ageac tua lly aris es from theadulte rous conduct which f ir st viol at es , and the n des troys, thetr ust of not only t he parti cipants, but als o of their r es pec tive f am il ie s. To minim iz e and ca st as the ore ti ca l t

he obvious negative c onse quenc es , s uch a s the e ros ion of themari ta l rel ations hip and the disruptio n to family unityi g n o res th ese empirical truths. T he d issent’s fatalistic pre suppos ition t

hat marria ges expe ri enc ing a ff airs wil l “c ra sh and burn, ” fa il s to rec ogniz e there al it y of f orgi vene ss and r ec onci li ation.10 n e g lig e n t co n d u c t ca u sin g a lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m , b u t . . . d o e s n o t co m p e n sa te fori ntent i on al con du ctcausi ng the sam e l oss. He l s el , 1 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4 (B e n to n , J ., d is s e n tin g ). See al s o Bland , 735 So. 2d at421 ( Sm i th, J . , s peci al l y concurr i ng) ( “ther e i s no poi nti n abol i s hi ng an otherw i s e val i d comm on l aw t or t , es peci al l y now thatw e have l evel ed the pl ayi ng f i el d i n K irk . W oul d the di s s ent s tr i ke dow n cons or t i um next ?”) . T her ef or e, i n the i nt er es tof

pr ot ect i ng the mar r i age r el at i ons hi p and pr ovi di ng a r emedy f ori nte nt i onal conductw hi ch ca us es a l os s of cons or t i um , thi s C our tdecl i nes the i nvi t at i on t o ab oli s h the comm on l aw t or tof al i enat i on of af f ect i ons i n M i s s i s s i ppi . A l i enat i on of af f ect i ons i s the onl y avai l abl e ave nue t o pr ovi de 12 redr ess f or a spou se w ho h as suff ered l oss and inj ury to h i s or he r m ari t al rel at i on shi p ag ai nst the thi r d party w ho, thr ough per s uas i on, ent i cement , ori nducement , caus ed orcontr i but ed t o the aba ndonm entof

the mar r i age a nd/ orthe l os s of af f ect i ons by act i ve i nt er f

er ence . II. W h ether the circuit cou rt com m i tt ed eviden ti ary error s. ( A) T he use of

F i t ch’s pr i ori ncons is t ent s tat em ent

s , s et f or th i n the pl eadi ngs , dur i ng V al ent i ne’s openi ng s tat em ent . ¶17. I n V al ent i ne’ s openi ng s t at ement , hi s couns el di s cus s ed the char ges cont ai ned i n t he compl ai nta nd Fi t ch’ s va r i ous r es pons es f ound i n hi s a ns w er , a ns w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and r es pons es t o r eques t s foradm i s s i ons w hi ch se tforth F i t ch’ s r epea t ed deni al s of havi ng s exual

### 11

r el at i ons w i th Sandr a orbei ng t he f atherof K . V . C ouns el f orFi t ch obj ect ed t o the pl eadi ngs b e in g re fe re n c e d in V a le n tin e ’s o p e n in g s ta te m e n t, a rg u in g “ th e y a re n o t p ro o f o r e v id e n c e .” T he ci r cui tj udge overrul ed Fi t ch’ s obj ect i on. ¶18. F i t ch no w co ntends t hat t he ci rcui tcourterr ed, m ai nt ai ni ng that“ar gum ent and c o m m e n ts u p o n th e c re d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s a re im p ro p e r w h e n m a d e in o p e n in g s ta te m e n t.” I n s uppor tther eof

, he ci t es B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 598 So. 2d 731, 749- 50 ( M i s s . 1992) , f ort he p ro p o sitio n th a t “b e fo re th e re c a n b e im p e a c h m e n t, th e re m u st b e tes tim o n y w h ich is i m peac habl e. ” A ccor di ng t o Fi t ch, V al ent i ne: p roc ee d ed to p u b li sh to the jury w h at he o b v iou sly c o n side red p asse d for a pr edi cat e f

r om w hi ch i m peac hm entm ay comm ence : uns w orn al l egat i ons of the [ c] om pl ai nt , uns w orn deni al s i n the [ a] ns w er . Fr om her e, [ V al ent i ne] pr ocee ded w i th the ‘ t es t i m ony’ – a ns w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , depos i t i on t es t i m ony, and r es pons es t o re ques tforadm i s s i ons . . . . [ Fi t ch] had nott aken the s t and. In F it ch ’s esti m ati o n , “the u n sw o rn a ll eg ati o n s w ere b low n u p an d p u b li sh ed to the jury o b v iou sly d ispro p o rt ion ate t o th eir sign if ican ce . . . i n l igh t o f th e fa ct th at m an y claim s w ere abandone d i n s ubs equentt es t i m ony. ” A s s uch, Fi t ch cont ends thatthi s e rr orw arr ant s a new trial. ¶ 1 9 . In re sp o n se , V a len tin e f ir s t s u b m its th a t F itc h h a s w a iv e d th is iss u e a s h e “ o n ly o b je c te d to [V a le n tin e ’s ] u s e o f t h e u n s w o rn p le a d in g s o n th e b a s is fo r u s e a s e v id e n c e [,]” butneverobj ect ed “t o the us e of the uns w orn pl eadi ngs on the bas i s of i m peac hm ent , w hi ch i s the i s s ue [ Fi t ch] i s r ai s i ng on appea l . ” See Johnson v. A lcorn State U ni v. , 929 S o. 2d 398, 407 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) (“ [ a] ppel l at e cour t s m ay notrul e upon mat er i al m att er s w hi ch the tr ia l ju d g e d id n o t h a v e th e o p p o rt u n ity to ju d g e . D itto v. H in ds Cou n t

y, Miss. , 665 So. 2d

### 12

8 7 8 , 8 8 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ). I s s u e s n o t r a is e d a t tr ia l c a n n o t b e r a is e d o n a p p e a l. Souther n v. Mis s is s i ppiState H

os p. , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). ”). ¶2 0. N ot w i ths t a nd i ng the a l l e ge d pr ocedur al bar , V al ent i ne mai nt ai ns t hatt he pr i or i nco nsi st ent s t at em ents : w er e notbei ng i ntr oduced dur i ng [ V al ent i ne’ s ] openi ng s t at emen tas s ubst ant i ve evi dence norw er e they bei ng ‘ of f er ed f orthe truth of

the mat t er asse rt ed ’ bu t the p lead ing s w ere be ing use d m ere ly t o de fi n e the i ssu es th e jury w oul d deci de and s how [ Fi t ch] made the s t at ement s a nd a s s uch i ti s r el evant reg ard less of i ts tru th an d i t d o es n o t m att er th at th e tr ier o f f ac t is un a b le to as cert ai n [ Fi t ch’ s ] cr edi bi l i ty. In su p p o rto f th is po sit ion , V alen ti n e n o tes th a t bo th h is co u n sel an d the c ir cu itco u rt i nf or m ed the j ury t hatthe s ubs t ance of t he op eni ng s t at ementdi d notcons t i tut e evi dence . M o re o v e r, V a len tin e a ss e rts th a t th e p lea d in g s “ w e re u se d a s d e m o n stra tiv e a id s o n ly . . . to des cr i be the i s s ues thatthe j ury w oul d deci de, [ Fi t ch’ s ] def ens es and t hat[ Fi t ch] had m ade pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement s . ” I n H agger t y v. Fos ter , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d 9 4 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ), th is C our ts t at ed: [ d] emonstr at i ve ev i den ce m ay b e adm i t t ed at the tr i al cou rt ’s dis cret i on , i f s uch e v id e n c e w a s r e a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a ry a n d m a te ri a l, Mu rr iel v . S ta te , 515 So. 2d 9 5 2 , 9 5 6 ( M is s . 1 9 8 7 ), a n d a p p ro p ri a te a n d re le v a n t. G a n d y v. S ta te , 373 So. 2d 1042, 1047 ( M i s s . 1979) . Fur therm or e, w her e err ori nvol ves the admi s s i on o r e x c lu sio n o f e v id e n c e , th is C o u rt “ w ill n o t re v e rse u n les s th e e rro r a d v e rse ly af f ect s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party. ” In re E state of Mask , 703 So. 2d 852, 8 5 9 . . . . H ag g e rty , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 8 . V a len tin e a rg u e s th a t “ th is e v id e n c e w a s n e c e ss a ry , m a ter ial, appr opr i at e, and r el evants i nce [ Fi t ch] t es t i f i ed thathe pr ovi ded i nf or m at i on t o hi s couns el t o be us ed i n ans w er i ng t he [ c] om pl ai nt . ” Fi nal l y, V al ent i ne i ns i s t s that“ thi s r ef er ence w as

### 13

cumul at i ve of

othera nd l at ers i m i l arde ni al s , unde roa th, i n r es pons e t o both i nt err ogat or i es a n d re q u e s ts fo r a d m is s io n s (w h ic h w e re a ls o s w o rn ) a n d if e rr o r a t a ll, it w a s h a rm le s s .” ¶21 . T he ci rcui t j ud ge’s decis i on t o ov errule F i t ch’s obj ect i on i s revi ew ed by this C o u rt u n d e r a n “ a b u s e o f d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd . See id . T hi s Courtf i nds thatthe us e of

Fi t ch’ s pr i or in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts in V a len tin e ’s o p e n in g sta tem e n t w a s p e rm iss ib le a n d th e c irc u it court ’ s deci s i on t o overrul e Fi t ch’ s obj ect i on w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. N otonl y w as the j ury r epea t edl y i nf

or m ed t hatt he cont entof the openi ng s t at ement s w er e notevi dence , b u t F itch ’s p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts in th e se p lea d in g s w e re d e v e lo p e d d u rin g h is tes tim o n y a t trial. A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ( B ) E vi dence of

V al ent i ne’s conduct

pr i ort o and af

t erhis m ar r i age to Sandr a. ¶ 2 2 . F it ch so u g h t t o so li cittest im o n y reg ard ing V alen ti n e’s adu lt ero u s co n d u ct w ith S an d ra att he i ncept i on of thei rre l at i ons hi p. V al ent i ne f i l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o pr eventFi t ch f r om intr o d u cing an y su ch ev iden ce . T h e c ir cu itjud g e g ran ted V alen ti n e’s m o ti o n in li m ine. In s uppor tof

thatpos i t i on, the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed that“i f you have a ny evi dence of . . . r el evant m a ri ta l m is c o n d u c t o n h is p a rt w h ile h e ’s m a rr ie d to [S a n d ra ], th a t’ s o n e th in g . P r oof beforehan d is som ething el se . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶2 3. “[ T ] he s t andar d of r evi ew r egar di ng R ul e 403 de t e r mi na t i on s i s an ‘ abus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” B a ldw in v. S ta te , 784 So. 2d 148, 160 ( M i s s . 2001) . A ppl yi ng thatdef er ent i al sta n d a rd o f re v iew , this C o u rt fin d s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in gr ant i ng V al ent i ne’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne. Fi t ch’ s w r ongf ul conductw as the i s s ue i n thi s cas e. T he pr es ence of

a marr i a ge r e l a t i on s hi p i s ne c e s s a ry f orthe t ortof

a l i e na t i on of

a f f e c t i ons to a p p ly . T h e re fo re , the tim e fra m e in w h ich V a len tin e a n d S a n d ra w e re m a rrie d , n o t th e ir

### 14

pr e- m arr i age c onduct , w as ke y. The m eage rpr obat i ve val ue of evi dence on the begi nni ng of V al ent i ne’ s r el at i ons hi p w i th Sandr a w as f ound t o be out w ei ghed by t he undue pr ej udi ce itw o u ld cre ate. A s su ch , the c ir cu itco u rtdid n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in g ran ti n g V alen ti n e’s m o tio n in lim in e , an d th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶2 4. A tt r i al , Val e nt i ne o bj e c t e d t o Fi t c h ment i on i ng a not herchi l d bor n t o V al ent i ne f ol l ow i ng his d i vo rc e f

r om Sandr a. T he ci r cui tcourtpr ecl uded the i ntr oduct i on of s uch evi dence , f

i ndi ng that“you s houl d noti nqui r e as t o any af t erborn chi l dr en, i f

that ’ s a corr ect t erm f or i tbecause t hat, i n the C ou rt ’s opinion , i s undul y pr ej udi ci aland of

l i m i t ed orno pr obat i ve v al ue . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 2 5 . On c e a g a i n , th i s Co u r t a p p l i e s th e d e f e r e n t i a l a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w, s ee id . , and f

i nds thatthe ci r cui tcourtdi d notabus e i t s dis cre t i on i n pr ecl udi ng the i ntr oduct i on of

evi dence r egar di ng the chi l d born t o V al ent i ne f ol l ow i ng hi s di vor ce f

r om Sandr a. T he key t i m e f r ame f orthe t or tof

a l i enat i on of

a f f ect i ons i s thatof t he m arr i age, w ith in w h ich th is e v id e n c e c lea rly d o e s n o t fit. M o re o v e r, th e c irc u it c o u rt fo u n d th is ev iden ce to b e “ u n d u ly p rejud ici al an d o f l im it ed o r no p rob ati v e v alue . ” A s the circu itco u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in so fin d in g , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed i n i nst ruct i ng t he j ury. ( A) I ns tr uct i ons P
- 5 and D

- 8. ¶26. I ns truct i on P- 5 w as gi ven t o the j ury by the ci r cui tcourtand pr ovi ded: [ i ] n order foryou r verdi ctt o be for[ V al enti ne] and against[ F i t ch] , you m ust f i nd the f ol l ow i ng: 1 . T h a t th e c o n d u c t o f [F itch ] w a s w ro n g fu l;

### 15 2 . A lo s s o f a ff

e c tio n o r c o n s o rt iu m w a s s u ff e re d b y [V a le n tin e ]; and 3. T hat thi s w r ongf

ul conductcaus ed the l os s of af f ect i on or c o n s o r t i u m. I f you det erm i ne the above st at em ent s t o be true, yo[ u] m us tr eturn a ver di ct for [V alen ti n e] an d aw ard h im d am ag es in ac co rda n ce w ith the C o u rt’s i nst ruct i on s. I f [ V al ent i ne] f

ai l s t o pr ove any one orm or e of thes e el ement s by a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e , th e n y o u r v e rd ic t m u s t b e fo r [ F itc h ]. Instruc ti o n D -8, w h ich w as re jected b y the c irc u itco u rtas “ rep eti ti v e,” stated “[y]ou are i nst ruct ed thati n d et erm i ning t he cau se of the loss of San dra’ s aff ect i on s [ V al enti ne] m ust pr ove, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , that[ Fi t ch’ s ] di r ecti nt er f er ence i n hi s m arr i age c a u s e d S a n d ra to lo s e a ff e c tio n s fo r h im .” ¶27. W hi l e conc edi ng thatM i s s i s s i ppi l aw has comm onl y l i s t ed t he el ement s of the t or t of a lie n a ti o n o f a ff

e c tio n s ju s t a s in In s tru c tio n P -5 , s ee S au n ders , 607 So. 2d at1215, Fi t ch a rg u e s th a t: as f ar back as Stanton v. C ox , 139 So. 458, 461 ( 1932) , i ti s s ett l ed l aw that [ V al ent i ne] m us tprove [ hi s ] l os s w as occas i oned by the di r ecti nt er f er ence of [F itch ]. B e c a u se th e lo w e r c o u rt’s in stru c tio n a llo w e d th e ju ry to fin d liab ili ty w i thoutt he pr edi cat e f

i ndi ng of pr oxi m at e caus e spe ci f i c t o t hi s t or t , the mat t er s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d fo r a n e w tr ia l . . . . ¶ 2 8 . In re s p o n s e , V a le n tin e in iti a lly c o n ten d s th a t F itc h w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u s e “ [t]o pr es erve an obj ect i on t o a j ury i ns truct i on, the s peci f i c gr ound f

orthe obj ect i on m us tbe s t at ed i n the or i gi nal obj ect i on. T he i s s ue r ai s ed on appeal m ay notbe bas ed on a di f f er ent l egal theory. ” See Shie lds v. Eas te r ling , 676 So. 2d 293, 296 ( M i s s . 1996) ( “Shi el ds di d not p u t th is o b

jec tio n to th e trial c o u rt i n any s peci f i c m eani ngf

ulm anner . T hus , the tr i al j udge

### Fitchreplies th at “[i]f the trial court was co rrect in findin g D-8 repetitiv e of P -5 . . 13 

### . [thenFitch ] loses this p oint onthe merits, n ot o n a p oint of p rocedure.” 16 had no op po rtun i ty t o rul e on i t . . . . T hu s, this C ou rti s bar r ed fr om re vi ew i ng t hi s i s s ue. ”) ( emphasi s added) . A tt r i al , F i t ch obj ect ed t o Ins truct i on P - 5 i ni t i al l y beca us e he pe r cei ved the w or di ng t o be “c um ber s om e. ” O nce the l anguage w as r ephr as ed, Fi t ch r ai s ed no f ur ther o b jec tio n . A s to In stru c tio n D -8 , the c irc u it j u d g e re fu se d th e in stru c tio n “ b e c a u se i[t ] becomes s om ew hatr epet i t i ve. ” A ccor di ng t o V al ent i ne, Fi t ch has f ai l ed t o sho w t hat I ns truct i on D - 8 “pr oper l y s t at ed the l aw and w as nece s s ary t o f ul l y i nf or m the j ury of

the l aw c o n s id e ri n g th e to ta lity o f t h e in s tru c tio n s [.]” 13 ¶29. T hi s C our t has st at ed t hat i t “[ i ] f other i ns truct i ons gr ant ed adequa t el y i ns tructt he ju ry , a p a rt y m a y n o t c o m p la in o f a r e f u s e d i n s tr u c tio n o n a p p e a l. P urina Mil l s, I nc. v. Moak , 5 7 5 S o . 2 d 9 9 3 , 9 9 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). . . . [T ]he tri a l co u rt h a s c o n sid e ra b le d isc re tio n in i ns truct i ng the j ury. ” S o u th la n d E n ter. v. N

e w to n Co u n ty , 83 8 S o. 2 d 2 86 , 28 9 (M i ss. 2003) . T hi s C our tfi r s tfi nds t hi s ar gum entt o be pr ocedur al l y barr ed as Fi t ch f ai l ed t o obj ect a fte r In stru c tio n P -5 w a s re p h ra se d a n d th e re fo re fa iled to p ro p e rly p re se rv e fo r a p p e a l h is I ns truct i on D - 8 a r gum ent . Pr ocedur al ba rnotw i ths t andi ng, thi s Courtc oncl udes t hat the ci r cui tcourtprope r l y exer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng I ns truct i on D - 8 “r epet i t i ve” of In stru c tio n P -5 . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. (B ) I n struc ti o n P -8 ¶30. I ns truct i on P- 8 w as gi ven t o the j ury by the ci r cui tcourtand pr ovi ded: [ y] ou ar e i ns truct ed thatj us tcompensa t i on i s a dec i s i on t o be made by t he j ury. Y ourdi s cr et i on as t o t he meas ur e of damages i s w i de, butnotunl i m i t ed, and you m ay notactarbi t rar i l y. E xer ci s e yourdi s cr et i on as t o the amountof

### Fit ch a ll ege s that Val entinedi d this “ to pre vent e xam inati on of

[hi ms el f] on is sue s 14 

### relating to h is adv entures after his marriag e to S andra end ed.” 17 damages r eas onabl y, i nt el l i gent l y and i n harm ony w i th the evi dence o f the cas e and t he C our t ’ s i ns truct i ons . T he dam ages cannotbe as s es s ed by an f i xed rul e, butyou ar e the s ol e j udges as t o the meas ur e of damages i n thi s cas e. Shoul d you f

i nd f or[ V al ent i ne] then you m us tdet erm i ne the amountof m oney w hi ch w i l l r eas onabl y and f ai r l y compe nsat e h i m f orthe val ue of

the cons or t i um he has l ost . Y ou s houl d cons i derthe f ol l ow i ng el ement s of damage as have be en pr oved by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence i n thi s cas e: a. T he l os s of

s oci ety, compani ons hi p, l ove and a f f ect i on; b. T he l os s of

a i de, s ervi ces , a nd phys i cal a s s i s t ance p rovi ded b y [S a n d ra ]; c. T he loss of sexual r el at i on s; d. T he l os s of

part i ci pat i on t ogetheri n the act i vi t i es , dut i es and r es pons i bi l i t i es of

m aki ng a home; e. A ny m ent al and emot i onal di s tr es s pr oxi m at el y r es ul t i ng f r om [ Fi t ch’ s ] conduct ; and f . A ny ot herdam ages pr oven t o have pr oxi m at el y r es ul t ed f r om a n y w ro n g fu l a c t o f [ F itc h ]. ¶31 . F i t ch ci t es Co u sa r v. S ta te , 8 55 S o. 2 d 99 3 (M i ss. 2003) , f orthe pr opos i t i on that “[ g] r ant i ng i ns truct i ons notsupport ed by evi dence i s err or . ” Id . a t997 ( ci t i ng H ag g e rty , 838 So. 2d at955) . F i t ch t hen ar gues t hatt he ci r cui tcour ter r ed by appr ovi ng “an i ns truct i on on damages w hi ch the evi dence di d nots uppor t , s peci f i cal l y al l ow i ng the j ury to cons i deran aw ar d f orany damage t he j ury thoughtappr opr i at e des pi t e the f actthat[ V al ent i ne] , on evi dent i ary gr ounds , abandone d al l damages beyond the cons or t i um l os tw i th hi s w i f e and chi l d. ” Fur therm or e, Fi t ch cont ends that“[ t ] her e i s no t empora l r es tr i ct i ons pl ace d on t he

14

### 18

i ns truct i on. . . . T hes e ques t i ons w er e s i gni f i canti ns of

aras [ V al ent i ne] cont i nu a l l y pr event ed [F itc h ] fr o m g o in g in to m a tte rs th a t p re c e d e d o r f o llo w e d th e m a rr ia g e .” ¶ 3 2 . In re sp o n se , V a len tin e m a in tain s th a t: [ t ] empora l r es tr i ct i ons w er e pl ace d both on types of damages r ecove r abl e and as t o w hatper i od of

t i m e the j ury s houl d c ons i ders i nce the j ury w as i ns truct ed t o onl y aw ar d damages pr oven dur i ng the cour s e of the t r i al t o have pr oxi m at el y r es ul t ed f

r om the w r ongf

ul act s of

[ Fi t ch] . T he j ury hear d the evi dence pr es ent ed and una ni m ous l y det erm i ned the amountof damages that w er e pr oxi m at el y caus ed b y [F itch ’s] w ro n g

fu l a c ts . (Em ph asi s added ). F urtherm ore, V al enti ne n otes that “[ t ] he instruct i on s m ustbe read as a
w hol e[ , ] ” P hil

li ps v. D ow Chem i cal

Co. , 2 4 7 M iss. 2 9 3 , 3 0 4 , 1 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 3 (19 6 3 ); C our tI ns truct i on N o. 4 provi ded thatany damages w er e t o be pr oven by a pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e ; a n d “ it is a n d s h o u ld b e p re s u m e d th a t th e ju ry fo llo w e d th e la w .” ¶3 3 . T h is C o u rt“m u st view the in stru cti o n in li g h t of all the o ther instruc ti o n s w h ich w ere g iv e n to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e ju ry w a s p ro p e rl y in s tru c te d . Munf or d, I nc . v. Fle m ing , 597 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ). . . . [T ]he trial c o u rt h a s c o n sid e ra b le d isc re tio n in i ns truc t i ng the j ur y. ” S ou th lan d E n ter. , 838 So. 2d at289. I ns truct i on P- 8 s t at ed “[ y] ou s houl d c ons i derthe f

ol l ow i ng e l ement s of

da m ages a s ha ve been pr oved by a pr eponder ance of the ev i dence in this ca se [.] ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). A s su ch , the d am ag es a w ard ed w ere l i m i t ed t o thos e pr oxi m at el y r es ul t i ng f r om Fi t ch’ s w r ongf

ul act s dur i ng V al ent i ne and S a n d ra ’s m a rria g e . G ra n tin g su c h a n in stru c tio n w a s p ro p e r a n d w e ll w ith in th e c irc u it ju d g e ’s d isc re tio n . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 19

I V . W he t he r t he j ur y v e r di c t was c ont r ar y t o t he ov e rw hel m i ng wei ght of t he evi dence. ¶ 3 4 . A t th e h e a rin g o n h is p o st-tria l m o tio n fo r JN O V , F itch a rg u e d th a t: beca us e the pl ai nt i f

f had notes t abl i s hed t he s econd e l ementof the t or tof al i enat i on of

af f ect i on [ l os s of

af f ect i on orc ons or t i um ] ora ca us al connec t i on

. . . b e tw e e n the d e fe n d a n t, [F itch ], as co n d u c t an d the d isin teg ra tio n o f t h is m arr i age, a j ury i s s ue w as notpr es ent ed and w e w oul d cont end thata di r ect ed ver di cts houl d have be en gr ant ed. In re sp o n se , V a len tin e m a in tain e d th a t: [ w ] hil e t hey hav e on e seto f f act s and p roof, w e had ano ther. T he jury ch ose t o bel i eve ourf

act s . I tw as a cl as s i c ca s e of w her e the j ury m ade a deci s i on a n d in th is c a se th e y m a d e it u n a n im o u sly . T her e w as proof on both s i des of i t . W e pr oved w r ongf

ul conduct . W e pr oved l os s of af f ect i on. W e pr oved the c a u sa l co n n e c tio n . W e p ro v e d lo ss o f lo v e a n d a ffe c tio n th ro u g h o u r c lien t. ( E m phas i s added) . A f t erhear i ng ar gum entf r om both part i es , the l ear ned ci r cui tj udge deni ed the JN O V m ot i on. ¶ 3 5 . A tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r J N O V is re v ie w e d d e n o v o b y th is C o u rt . P o o le v. A vara , 908 So. 2d 716, 726 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng W il s on v. G en. Motors A cce ptance Cor

p. , 883 S o. 2d 56, 64 ( M i s s . 2004)) . “The t r i al cour tm us tvi ew the evi dence i n the l igh tm ost fa v o ra b le to the n o n -m o v in gp a rty and l ook onl y t o the s uf f i ci ency , and notthe w ei ght , of t hat evi dence . ” P o o le , 908 So. 2d at 726 (em phas i s added) . “W hen det erm i ni ng w hethert he evidence w as s uf

f i ci ent , the cr i t i cal i nqui ry i s w hetherthe evi dence i s of s uch qual i ty t hat
r eas onabl e and f

ai r m i nded j ur ors i n the exe r cis e of f ai rand i m

par t i alj udgm ent

m i ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons . ” Id . ( ci t i ng Jes co, I nc. v. W hitehead , 45 1 S o. 2d 70 6, 713 -14 (M i ss. 1 9 8 4 ) ( R o b e rt s o n , J ., s p e c ia lly c o n c u rr in g )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o Ir b y v. T ra v is , 935 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 8 -89 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ).

### Reg ardin g lo ss of co nso rtium: 15 

### [t ] he inte re st

sought to beprot ec te d is persona l t o thewif e [ husband] and arises o ut of themarria ge r el ation. She [ He] is entitle d to s oci ety, com pani onship, l ove, af

fe ction, aid, s er

vic es , suppor

t, se xualre lati ons and the com fort of

her husband [his wife ] as spe ci alright s and duti es growing out of themarria ge c ovenant. To the semay be a dded the right to l ivetoge the r in the samehouse , t o eat at t

he s am e t able, and to partic ipatetoge the r in the activities, duties an d resp on sibilities necessaryto mak e a ho me. A ll of th ese ar e included in thebroa d te rm , ‘ conj ugalright s. ’ Thel oss of c onsor tium i s the loss o f anyor all o f these rig hts . . . . Kirk , 607 So. 2d at

1224 (c iting Trib ble v. Grego ry , 288 So. 2d 13, 16 ( Mis s. 1974)) .

20 ¶36. T he comm onl y s t at ed el ement s of the t or tof

a l i enat i on of

af f ect i ons ar e “( 1) w r ongf

ul conductof

the def endant ; ( 2) l os s of

af f ect i on orconsort i um ; [ ] and ( 3) caus al connec t i on 15 betw een s uch conductand l os s . ” S au n ders , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 5 . See al s o Ca mp , 462 So. 2d at727 ( “w her e a hus band [ w i f e] i s w r ongf

ul l y depr i ved of

hi s [ her ] r i ght s t o the ‘ s ervi ces and compani ons hi p and cons or t i um of hi s [ her ] w i f

e [ hus band] , ’ he [ s he] has a cause of act i on

‘ agai ns tthe one w ho has i nt er f er ed w i th hi s [ her ] dom es t i c r el at i ons . ’ . . . T he hus band [ w i f e] m i ghtthen s ue f

or. . . al i enat i on of

af f ect i on . . . . ”) . T hi s C ou rth as rec ogni zed that persuasi on , ent i cem ent, or i nd ucem ent w hich causes or contr i bu t es t o the aban do nm ent i s a n e c e ss a ry c o m p o n e n t o f “ w ro n g fu l co n d u c t.” J u stic e D ick in so n re c o g n ize d in Ch il dren ’s Medical G r oup v. P hil

li ps , 940 S o. 2d 931 ( M i s s . 2006) thati n or der“t o m ai nt ai n thi s act i on it m ustbe est abli shed thatthe h usban d [w i fe] w as i nduced t o abandon the w i f

e [ hus band] by s om e act i ve i nt er f

er ence on the partof

the def endant . ” Id . at934 ( quot i ng Stanton , 139 So. at460) ( emphasi s added) . I n r ecogni zi ng thi s he i dent i f i ed pr e- Stanton l anguage r equi r i ng p e rs u a s io n . See McR ae , 1 4 5 M iss . at 2 0 5 , 1 1 0 S o . at 5 0 8 . T h u s, to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th is

### As we llas in hi s answe r. 16 

### At tri al , Sandra

adm itte d to di sc uss ing t

he l aws uit

with Fitch. Regarding pote nti al 17 

### motiv e, counsel fo r Valentine stated , “theyeat out of th e same trou gh .” 21 s t andar d w as m et , fol l ow i ng deni al of the JN O V m ot i on, t hi s C our tm us tvi ew the evi dence “i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party[ , ] ” P o o le , 9 08 S o. 2 d at 726, and i tm ust be det erm i ned i f

“r eas onabl e and f

ai r m i nded j ur or s i n the exe r ci s e of f ai rand i m par t i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons [ , ] ” id . , as t o thatevi dence . ¶ 3 7 . A s a p re lim in a ry m a tte r, th e c re d ib ility o f a w itn e s s is to b e ju d g e d b y th e ju ry . See Bland , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 9 . V iew in g th e c re d ib ili ty e v id e n c e re g a rd in g F itch a n d S a n d ra “ in the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e, ” P o o le , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d at 7 2 6 , to V a len tin e , it is c lea r th a t a r e a so n a b le j ur orcoul d r ej ectordi s countthei rt es t i m ony. ¶38. U nder oath and i n r es pons e t o V al ent i ne’ s f i r s t s et of i nt err ogat or i es and r eques t s f or a d m iss io n , F itch d e n ied b o th th a t h e fa th e re d K .V . an d th a t h e h a d an y se x u a l re latio n s w ith

16 Sandr a. A tthe t i m e of thi s r es pons e, K . V . w as m or e than one ye arol d. A ttr i al , Fi t ch t es t i f i ed thathe kne w the chi l d w as hi s “ a m onth ortw o a f t ers he w as born. ” A tthe t i m e he re sp o n d e d u n d e r o a th to V a len tin e , F itch w a s w e ll aw a re th a t K .V . w a s h is c h ild . In sp ite of thi s , Fi t ch deni ed bei ng K . V . ’ s f atherand havi ng any s exual r el at i ons w i th Sandr a. ¶39. A s t o Sandr a, w hen s he w as pr egnantw i th K . V . i n the f al l of 1998, duri ng her s econd trim e ste r o f p re g n a n c y , sh e fa lse ly d e n ied to V a len tin e th a t sh e w a s h a v in g a n a ffa ir w ith Fi t ch. A ttr i al , s he s t at ed thatheraf f ai rw i th F i t ch com m ence d i n l at e 1997 orear l y 1998. Fur therm or e, Sandr a s ubs equent l y m arr i ed Fi t ch, a nd, a s Fi t ch’ s w i f e, he rt es t i m ony attr i al i n s uppor tof

Fi t ch’ s pos i t i on coul d j us t i f i abl y be ques t i oned. 17Fur therm or e, Sandr a admi t t ed attr i al thats he comm i t t ed adul t ery w i th Fi t ch. 18 

### 22 ¶40 . F urtherm ore, view i ng the tes t i m on y an d ev i den ce present ed at tri al “i n the l i gh t m ost f avor abl e, ” id . , to V alen ti n e, a rea so n ab le j u ror c o u ld co n clud e that a ll e lem en ts of the tort of al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons w er e met . T he “w r ongf ul conductof the def

endant , ” S au n ders , 607 So. 2d at1215, w hen vi ew ed “i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e, ” P o o le , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 2 6 , to V al ent i ne, w as s at i s f

i ed by i ntr oduct i on of

evi dence s uppor t i ng a f i ndi ng thatFi t ch’ s act s of p e rsu a sio n , en tice m e n t, or in d u c e m e n t ca u se d o r c o n tr ib u ted to a n a d u ltero u s re latio n sh ip betw een Fi t ch and Sandr a, w hi ch s ubs equent l y w as admi t t ed. T he j ud gm entof di vor ce pr ovi ded that“[ t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed i n open [ c] our tcl ear l y es t abl i s hes that[ V al ent i ne] i s ent i t l ed t o a di vor ce on the gr ounds of adul t ery. ” Fur therm or e, V al ent i ne t es t i f i ed that 18 af t erK . V . w as born he be gan f i ndi ng l ar ge s um s of

money thr oughoutthe hom e, w hi ch Sandr a cl ai m ed t o have made atw or k. T he amountof cas h he f

ound f arexce eded w hathe had pr evi ous l y obs erved Sandr a ea rni ng. Fi t ch tes t i fi ed t o gi vi ng Sandr a money bet w een February 1999 and A ugus t1999. M or eover , Fl emi ng t es t i f i ed thatSandr a t ol d hers he w as g iven $ 8 , 0 0 0 b y F it ch w ith w h ich to b u y a n ew J e e p C h e rok ee . S o o n there after, S an d ra a c q u ire d a n e w J e e p C h e ro k e e . F in a lly , F lem in g te stifie d th a t S a n d ra to ld h e r “ th a t if sh e d id qui t[ w or ki ng f

orFi t ch] , s he w as af

r ai d thatM r . Fi t ch w oul d have [ the chi l d] t aken a w ay fr om her . ” V al ent i ne t es t i f i ed hi s m arr i age f

ai l ed bec aus e Sandr a “c oul dn’ tr es i s tal l t he m oney[ , ] ” and, abs entFi t ch, hi s m arr i age w oul d have r emai ned i nt act . T hi s s at i s f i es t he add i t i on al el em ent of

persuasi on , enti cem ent, or i nd ucem ent, w hen view ed “i n the li gh tm ost fa v o ra b le ,” to V a le n tin e . P o o le , 908 So. 2d at726. T he key i s s ue i s t he “ca us al connec t i on“ L ik e n o rm a l c o u p le s .” 19 

### Sandra f urther te stif ie d that s he ne ver

fi le d for divorcefrom Va le ntine. 20 

### 23 betw een s uch conducta nd l os s . ” Id . I n short , w hen di d t he l os s of s oci ety, compani ons hi p, ai d, s ervi ces , s uppor t , and the r emai ni ng component s of l os s of af f ect i on and cons or t i um occur ? See K

irk , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d at 1 2 2 4 . W a s it b e fo re o r a fte r S a n d ra b e c a m e in v o lv e d w ith F i t ch? If

aft er , di d Fi t ch’ s w r ongf ul conductl ead t o Sandr a’ s l os s of af f ect i on or c o n so rtiu m ? A g a in , the tes tim o n y m u st b e v iew e d “ in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le,” to V a le n tin e . P o o le , 908 So. 2d at726. E ven though the marr i age may have be en “on the r ocks , ” ther e i s no pr oof thatai d, s ervi ces , s uppor t , or the r i ghtt o l i ve i n the s ame house and ea t atthe s am e tab le ha d b ee n lost un ti l aft er the w ron g fu l co n d u ct, ev en tho u g h S an d ra as s ert ed thats he l os taf f ect i on f orV al ent i ne i n January of 1996. A r ound thatt i m e, s he al l egedl y w entt o the ca s i no, t ol d V al ent i ne thati f he di d notl eave w i th herthei rm arr i age w as over , a nd he di d notl eave . Fr om thatpoi nton, w hi ch pr edat ed heri ntr oduct i on t o Fi t ch, s he cl ai m s nott o have “ car e[ d] i f he w entevery ni ght , and that ’ s w hen ourm arr i age w as o v e r.” H o w e v e r, V a len tin e tes tified th a t, pr io r to K .V .’s b irth , h is m a rria g e to S a n d ra , w h ile n o t perfec t, w as “ n o rm al. ” H e stated tha t they ha d regu lar sex u al r elati o n s prior to K . V . ’s 19 bi r th, s har ed a j oi ntchec ki ng acc ount , at e meal s t ogether , nevers epar at ed, a nd thathe l oved 20 Sandr a. O nl y af

t erK . V . w as born di d V al ent i ne begi n t o no t i ce changes i n Sandr a. T he “l os s of af f ect i on orcons or t i um , ” id ., w a s u n q u e stio n a b ly p re se n t. ¶4 1. A f

t e rc on s i de r i ng t he evi dence , t he j ur y u n a n im o u sly f ound f orV al ent i ne i n the am ou nt of

$6 42 , 00 0 in actual dam ages an d, thereaft er, for$1 12 , 50 0 in pun i t i ve d am ages. I n l i ght of t he cr edi bi l i ty i s s ues s urr oundi ng both Fi t ch’ s and Sandr a’ s t es t i m ony and the

### Spec if ic al ly, Val entineargues that Fi tc h “only ob ject ed t o thejur

y ins tr uction on 21 

### punitivedam age s t o the ex tent it had a pre sum pti on of m al ic e. This pre sum pti on was re dac te d from t

he instruc ti on. [ Fit ch] then only made a gene ra l obj ec ti on to puni tive dam age s. ” Whi leFit ch a dmi ts that he“did not urge a Firs t Am endm ent -ba se d the ory of relief again stth e punitiv e damag e award [,]” he still maintain s that h e raised due p rocess cl ai ms in t

he c ircui t court reg arding “the ‘ exc es si vene ss of the ve rdi ct ’ a s we llas the cumu lative erro rs . . . .” 24 sta n d a rd o f re v iew w h ich m a n d a tes v iew in g th e e v id e n c e “ in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le,” to V al ent i ne, “r eas onabl e and fai rm i nded j ur or s . . . exer ci s [ i ng] . . . f ai rand i m par t i al j udgm ent , ” coul d ( and unani m ous l y di d) f i nd Fi t ch l i abl e f

orthe t or tof

al i enat i on of a ff e c tio n s . Id . O u t of resp ec t f o r th e jud g m en ts of b o th the jury an d circu itjud g e, th is C o u rt concl udes t hat“[ c] onf

l i ct i ng evi dence exi s t s w hi ch coul d caus e f ai r - m i nded j ur or s t o r eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons and thus , gr ant i ng thi s mot i on w oul d have be en i m pr oper . T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . ” Id . V . W h ether the p u n i ti ve d am ag e aw ard viol ates du e p rocess. ¶ 4 2 . F itch c o n c e d e s th a t “[u ]nd e r th e cu rre n t state o f ju risp ru d e n c e in M iss iss ip p i, th e sta te h a s a leg iti m a te in ter e st in p ro tec tin g the ins titu tio n o f m a rria g e ” an d the lo v e th a t fo rm s its f oundat i on. N onethel es s , he ar gues thats uch i nt er es tends “w hen one is p un i s hed f or engagi ng i n act i on pr ot ect ed by the C ons t i tut i on thati nci dent al l y m ay al s o caus e the tr ans f er of af f ect i ons t o one out s i de the mar r i age. ” Ther ef or e, he mai nt ai ns that“t he pena l componentof

the aw ar d bel ow . . . of f ends s ubs t anti ve du e proc es s i ns of aras i ts anct i ons p u n is h m e n t f

o r c o n s titu tio n a lly p e rm is s iv e c o n d u c t.” ¶ 4 3 . In rep ly , V a len tin e first arg u e s th a t F itch w a iv e d this a rg u m e n t b y o n ly g e n e ra lly obj ect i ng t o puni t i ve dam ages a ttr i al and nots eeki ng r emi t t ance of the puni t i ve damage 21

### Whic h st at es “[ p] uniti vedam a ge s m ay n ot beawarde d if

thecl ai mant doe s not

prove 22 

### by cl ear and convincing evi denc e that thedefen dant a gainst

whom puni tive dama ges ar e sought ac te d with actual malic e , gross negl ige ncewhic h evi den ces a wil lf ul, want on or re ckl es s di sregard f

or the s af ety of other s, or c omm itte d ac tua l f ra ud.”(Em phas is adde d). 25 a w a rd in p o st-tria l m o tio n s. N o tw ith sta n d in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, V a len tin e n o tes th a t th is C our t“has r ecogni zed puni t i ve damages as pr operre l i ef i n al i enat i on of a f

f ect i on cas es s i nce B r is terv. D unaw ay , 11 5 S o. 36 (M i ss. 19 28 ) . . . . ” M oreove r, he assert s that because a d u lte ry c o n s titu te s m a lic e , s ee W alter , 228 So. 2d at598 ( “on the i s s ue of a dul t ery w i th the
w ife o f a n o th e r . . . m a lice is p re su m e d .”), th e n M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 5 (1 )(a ) is 22
s at i s f i ed and “ [ t ] he nec es s ary el ement s w er e pr es entf orthe j ury t o de t erm i ne w hetherornot to g ra n t p u n iti v e d a m a g e s in th is c a se .” In to tal, V a len tin e m a in tain s th a t: [ t ] hi s m al i ci ous actof

adul t ery w as . . . admi t t ed on the s t and. Fur ther , other agg ravat i ng ci r cumst ance s al s o exi s t ed i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce: i . e. , by the co n ti n u ing ac ts of ad u lt ery o cc u rri n g tw o to three ti m es a w ee k d u ri n g w o rk and occ as i onal l y atni ghtove ra n e xt ended per i od of t i m e; by a chi l d f

ather ed by [ Fi t ch] dur i ng Sandr a’ s m arr i age t o [ V al ent i ne] ; a nd by the exorbi t antand lav ish su m s o f m o n e y , g ifts, a n d b e n e fits w h ich [F itch ] ga v e to S a n d ra , h is e m p lo y e e , d u ri n g h e r m a rr ia g e to [V a le n tin e ]. ¶44. A s an i ni t i al m att er , thi s C our t f i nds that t his i ss ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed as no due p ro c e s s c h a ll e n g e to th e p u n itiv e d a m a g e a w a rd w a s ra is e d b e fo re th e c ir c u it c o u rt . See Johnson , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d at 4 0 7 . P ro c e d u ra l ba r n o tw ith sta n d in g , th is C o u rt h a s c o n s is ten tly recogn i zed p un i t i ve d am ages as a l egit i m at e form of r el i ef i n al i enati on of af fect i on s cases . See B r is ter , 115 So. a t36. M or eover , the puni t i ve damages a w ar ded i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce

### The puni tive dama ge a ward cons ti tut ed l es s than 15% of thetot alaward. The 23 

### Un it edS tate s S up reme Co urt h as no ted th at “sing le-dig it multip liers are more lik ely to com port with due proce ss .” Sta te Fa rm Mu t. A uto mo bile Ins. Co. v. C am pb ell, 538 U. S. 408, 425 ( 2003). 26 w ere onl y a fr act i on of com pen sat ory dam ages a w arded, h ardl y ri si ng to t he l evel of gross 23
e x c e ss . In to tal, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I. W h e th e r th is C o u r t sh o u ld o r d e r a r e m ittitu r o f th e a w a r d in th is cas e. ¶45. A s t o damages , C i r cui t J udge H ow or th cons i der ed a m ot i on t o r emi t the ver di ctand concl uded: [t] h e ju ry ’s v e rd ict . . . se e m e d to b e a lo t o f m o n e y to m e ; b u t if I c o rre c tly i ns truct ed t he j ury on the el ement s of thei rdamages and i f

the j ury w as ent i t l ed t o con si der once they arr i ved ata conc l us i on aboutl i abi l i ty, cons i der ed the e le m e n ts th a t I in s tru c te d th e m o n , I c an’ ts econd-gues s them , don’ thave the author i t y to do s o, don’ twantto do s o. I t ’s the j ur y’s j ob t o es tabl is h the value o f th e lo ss a n d

th e y ’v e d o n e so a n d

I c a n n o t sa

y th e a m o u n t o

f th e v e rd ict is s uch t o j us t i

f y the C our tgr ant i ng the m ot i on t o r em i tthe ve r di ct . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 4 6 . M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -5 5 sta tes , in p a rt: [ t ] he s upr eme cour torany othercourtof r ecor d i n a case in w hi ch money damages w er e aw ar ded may overrul e a m ot i on fornew t r i al oraf f i r m on di r ect orcr os s appea l , upon condi t i on of an addi turorr emi t t i tur , i f the courtf

i nds t hat t he damages ar e exc es s i ve ori nadequa t e f orthe r eas on thatthe j ury or tr i erof f act s w as i nf

l uence d by bi as , pre

j udi ce, or pa s s i on, orthatthe damages aw ar ded w er e contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof cr edi bl e evi dence . M i s s . Code A nn. Sec t i on 11- 1- 55 ( R ev. 2002) . T hi s Courtha s s t at ed that“ [ a] bsent ei ther o f t h e s e fi n d in g s , th e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e s its d is c re tio n [,]” in o rd e ri n g a re m ittit u r. S ta te H i ghw ay Com m is s i on of Miss. v. W

ar r en , 530 So. 2d 704, 707 ( M i s s . 1988) ( quot i ng McI ntos h v. D eas , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d 3 6 7 , 3 6 9 -70 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )).

### 27

¶4 7. Fi t ch i ni t i al l y admi t s t hat“t he ver di ctw as bas ed on [ V a l e nt i ne’ s ] t es t i m ony conce rni ng the di s tr es s c aus ed by the br eakup of hi s m arr i age a nd . . . thatexpertt es t i m ony i s notr equi r ed

to p ro v e su c h e lem e n ts.” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). N o n e th e les s, h e a rg u e s th a t: [V a len tin e ] su ffe re d n o e c o n o m ic lo ss in th is c a se th a t w a s q u a n tified w ith c e rta in ty su ffic ien t t o s u p p o rt th e a w a rd . . . . S u c h a v e rd ict is s o o b v io u sly exce s s i ve as t o demonstr at e w i thoutf ur therar gum ent , bi as , pas s i on and p re ju d ic e o n th e p a rt o f t h e ju ry . T h e v e rd ic t s h o u ld b e s e t a s id e . . . . ¶4 8. V al ent i ne r es ponds tha tthe j ury v e r di c tw a s un a ni mous a nd tha t“ [ t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed by [ V al ent i ne] s uppor t ed the j ury’ s f i ndi ng that[ he] s uf

f er ed a l os s of

cons or t i um a n d aff e c tio n , a n d m e n tal a n d em o tio n a l dis tre ss b e c a u se o f [F itch ’s] w ro n g fu l a c ts .” S p e c ifica lly , h e a rg u e s th a t: [ t ] he pr oof

es t abl i s hed that[ V al ent i ne] s uf f er ed notonl y f

r om the al i enat i on o f S a n d ra ’s a ffe c tio n , b u t th e d a m a g e s a n d los se s h e su sta in e d as a re su lt o f h is m ar i t al hous ehol d di vi ded. [ V al ent i ne] cont i nues t o s uf f erf r om the ef

f ect s of notonl y l os i ng the af

f ect i on of Sandr a, butal s o f

r om the ef

fect s of l os i ng [ K . V . ] w ho he thoughtw as hi s da ught erand w ho he r ai s ed as hi s daught erand f r om l os i ng hi s r i ghtt o be a f ul l t i m e f atherof hi s s on, [ J . V . ] , a l l a s a r es ul tof [ F i t ch’s] w rongful and i ntent i on al act s. Fur therm or e, “[ i ] f

t her e w as bi as or prej ud i ce, the puni t i ve ver di ctw oul d have be en much l arge r, p art i cular l y w hen [ F i t ch’s] l i stof ass et s r efl ect ed ag gregat e asset s of atl east [$ 1 8 ,6 3 9 ,7 5 0 ].” ¶ 4 9 . T h e tria l ju d g e ’s d e c isio n o n th e d e n ial o r a c c e p tan c e o f a n a d d itu r o r re m itt itu r is re v ie w e d b y th is C o u rt f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . R os s -K ing- W al ker , I nc. v. Hens on , 672 So. 2d 11 88 , 11 93 -94 (M i ss. 19 96 ). T he ev i den ce i n this ca se, vi ew ed “in the li gh tm ostH e s o ld h is in te re s t i n th e h o u s e to S a n d ra “ b e c a u s e [h e ] w a n te d a p la c e f o r [ J .V .] 24 to liv e .” H e gave S andra phys i cal cus t ody of J . V . beca us e “[ he] l oved [ K . V . ] . I w as not 25 g o in g to s p lit th e m u p a n d d o th a t to h im .” 

### 28 f avor abl e, ” P o o le , 908 So. 2d at726, t o V al ent i ne es t abl i s hes thatV al ent i ne l os t : hi s hom e; 24 ph ysi cal cust od y o f J . V . ; his m arr i age an d the soci et y, com pan i on shi p, ai d, services , 25
s upp ortan d othercomponent s of af f ect i on and cons or t i um att ache d ther et o; and K . V . , t he ch il d h e b eli ev ed to b e, an d raised as, his d au g h ter. A s the circu itjud g e fo u n d , the ju ry e sta b lish e s th e v a lu e o f th e lo ss su ffe re d b y V a len tin e . T h e y d e ter m in e d h e w a s e n tit led to $642, 000 i n actual damages and $112, 500 i n puni t i ve damages , a nd the j udge conc l uded that the amountof

the ver di ctdi d notj us t i f y r emi t t i tur . T her e bei ng no e vi dence thatei ther“( 1) the j ury ortr i erof

f actw as i nf

l uence d by bi as , pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on, or( 2) the . . . damages
w er e contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence [ , ] ” E nter gy Mis s . , I

nc. v. B olden , 8 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ), th is C o u rt fin d s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n denyi ng r emi t t i turand the j ury ver di cts houl d be af f i r m ed. CO NC L US I ON ¶5 0. B as ed upon the a f or e ment i on e d an a l ys i s , thi s Courta f f i r ms the j udgm entof t he C i r cui tC our tof

M ar s hal l C ounty ent er ed aga i ns tFi t ch and i n favor of V al ent i ne “f ort he to ta l s u m o f $ 7 5 4 ,5 0 0 a n d in te re s t th e re o n in th e a m o u n t o f 8 % p e r a n n u m a n d a ll c o s ts . . . .” ¶ 5 1 . AFF I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B P .J J ., D I A Z A N D C A R L S O N , J J ., CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI CK I NS ON , J . , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON

### 29

J OI NED I N PART BY G RAV ES , J . EAS LEY, J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶ 5 2 . In m y v iew , M iss iss ip p i sh o u ld ab a n d o n th e fiv e o th e r sta tes w h ich c o n tin u e to fu lly r e c o g n i z e th e a n t i q u a t e d c o mm o n l a w t o r to f a l i e n a t i o n o f

a f f e c t i o n s , a n d j o i n th e f

o r ty - two stat es w h o refu se to d o so . A s w ell said b y the Io w a S u p rem e C o u rta q u arter of a ce n tury ago, “[ t ] her e is inhe r entand f at al contr adi ct i on i n the t erm ‘ al i enat i on of af f ect i ons . ’ T he al i enat i on bel i es the af f ect i on. ” F underm an v. Mi ckel s on , 3 0 4 N. W . 2 d 7 9 0 , 7 9 1 ( I o wa 1981) . N everthel es s , I have been uns ucce s s f ul i n per s uadi ng the bene vol entm aj or i ty w hi ch h o ld s th a t th e a n c ien t an d in firm c a u se o f a c tio n sh a ll c o n tin u e to b re a th e in M iss iss ip p i. T hats ai d, I s hal l r es pectthe maj or i ty’ s deci s i on, and appl y the l aw t o al i enat i on of af f ect i ons c a se s w h ich fin d th e ir w a y h e re , inc lu d in g th e c a se b e fo re u s to d a y . F irst, ho w e v e r, I sh a ll s t at e my cas e f

orabol i t i on of

the ca us e of

act i on. E vol ut i on of

the al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons caus e of

act i on ¶53. T he t or tc al l ed al i enat i on of af f ect i ons or i gi nat ed i n the Engl i s h comm on l aw , w hen
w iv e s w e re c o n sid e re d th e ir h u sb a n d s’ p ro p e rty . A third p a rty w h o ac tiv e ly in ter fe re d w ith a mar r i age by pe r s uadi ng a w i f e t o l eave herhus band w as c ons i der ed t o ha ve depr i ved the hus band of

hi s pr operty. A br i ef

overvi ew of

the deve l opm entof

comm on l aw al i enat i on act i ons i s i n orde rt o expl ai n and provi de an hi s t or i cal backdr op f orthe di s cus s i on t o come. ¶54. I n or dert o m ai nt ai n pur e bl oodl i nes a nd di s cour age adul t ery, Teut oni c tr i bes r equi r ed a w ife ’s lo v e r to c o m p e n sa te th e h u sb a n d fo r h is w ife ’s in fid e lity , a llo w in g th e h u sb a n d to b u y a n e w w if

e a n d e n s u re th e le g itim a c y o f h is o ff s p ri n g . Hoye v. Hoye , 824 S . W . 2d 422,

### 30

4 2 3 -2 4 (1 9 9 2 ) ( c itin g L ip p m a n , The B r eakdown of C ons or t i um , 30 C ol um . L . R ev. 651, 655 ( 1930) ) . T he A ngl o- Saxons l at eral l ow ed ac t i ons f orm ar i t al i nt er f

er ence on the pr emi s e that
w iv e s w e re v a lu a b le s e rv a n ts to th e irh u s b a n d s . Hel s el v. N oel l s ch , 107 S. W . 3d 231( M o. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e a c tio n w a s a n a lo g o u s to a m a ste r’s c laim “ a g a in st o n e w h o e n tic e d a w a y h is s ervant , i n w hos e s ervi ces the mast erhel d a quas i - pr operty i nt er es t . ” O ’ N eil v. Schuckardt , 7 3 3 P .2 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 6 (Id a h o 1 9 8 6 ). T h u s, in k e e p in g w ith th is b e lie f, a h u sb a n d c o u ld “vindi cat e” his l oss i n the m ari t al rel at i on shi p thr ou gh an acti on foral i enati on of af fect i on s, b u t a w if e w a s n o t a ff

o rd e d th e s a m e ri g h t. H el s el , 107 S. W . 3d at232. ¶55. T w o cent ur i es ago, i n Hutches on v. P eck , 5 J o h n s . 1 9 6 ( N. Y. 1 8 0 9 ) , th e S u p r e me C our tof J udi catur e of

N ew Y or k appl i ed t he com m on l aw t or tt o an act i on by a hus band w ho sued hi s w i f

e’ s f atherf ora t t empt i ng t o a l i enat e hi s w i f e’ s a f f ect i on. A l thoug h at f

i rs t ag ree ab le t o h is da u g h ter’s m arriage , the fa the r-i n -l aw b eg an to q u esti o n the P lai n ti ff’ s ab il ity to p rov ide fo r his d au g h ter, an d ch an g ed h is m ind . H e thre aten ed h is da u g h ter’s hus band, goi ng s o f

aras t o “st ri ke” hi m , and then t ook hi s daught eri nt o hi s hom e and thr eat ened that , i f

s he r eturned t o herhusband, he w oul d notsupportt hem. I n anal yzi ng t he cl ai m , the courts t at ed that“[i ] f i tw as the duty of

the w i f e t o r eturn t o herhus band, t he def endantdi d an unl aw f

ul actby per s uadi ng hert o vi ol at e thatduty. I f the w i f e w as unj us t i f i abl e i n abandoni ng t he pl ai nt i f f , the def endanti s r es pons i bl e f

orhavi ng ent i ced

and pers uaded

h e r t o a b a n d o n h im .” Id . at 2 0 5 (e m p h a sis a d d e d .). T h e c o u rt w e n t o n to sta te that , had the def

endant“notbeen i ns trum ent al i n pr ocur i ng h i s daught ert o l i ve apa r tf r om h e r h u sb a n d , an d h a d h e g o n e n o fu rth e r th a n to re c e iv e an d su p p o rt h e r,” th e p lain tiff w o u ld h a v e n o re c o v e ry . Id . at206. T he courtthen s t at ed, “[ v] ery di f f er ent , how ever , w i l l be the

### As w il l b e d iscussedbelo w, th e tort’s elements chan gedin M ississipp i bythis 26 

### Co urt’s lo ose interpretatio n o f prev iou s cases. 31 concl us i on, w hen the par entunl aw f ul l y pr oduces the separ at i on by s ow i ng the s eeds of di s cor d a nd ha tr ed; ther eby poi s oni ng the s our ces of domest i c harm ony and enj oym ent . ” Id . ¶56. I n W

ens m or e v. G r eenban , ( W i l es 581) ( W i l es ’ Engl i s h K i ng’ s B ench a nd C om m on Pl eas R eport s ) , the anci ent E ng l i s h courtdecl ar ed, “[ t ] o be s ur e, i tm us tbe an unl aw f ul pr ocur i ng. . . a n d b y m e a n s o f [ in s in u a tio n s ] th e d e fe n d a n t [ m u s t h a v e ] pers uaded the p lai n ti ff’ s w if

e to d o an u n law ful ac t . . . . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶57 . W hen M i ssi ssi pp i becam e on e of the U nit ed S t at es, i trecogn i zed an d ad op t ed m ost of the Engl i s h comm on l aw . T hus , the ci vi l caus e of acti on foral i enat i on of af f ect i ons travel ed w i th o ur ancest ors f rom E ng l and t o M i ssi ssi pp i . O ver the p asttw o h un dred ye ars , h o w e v er, the c au se o f acti o n ha s fal len into d isf av o r f o r sev era l rea so n s. In the late ni net eenth and ea r l y t w ent i eth centur i es , the M arr i ed W om en’ s Pr operty A ct s w er e pas s ed, g iv in g w o m e n th e s a m e ri g h ts to o w n p ro p e rt y a s m e n . Hoye , 8 24 S . W . 2d at424 ( ci t i ng C o m m e n t, A l i ena t i on o

f A f f ect i on s: F l ou rishi ngA na chron ism , 13 W ake For es tL . R ev. 585, 5 8 8 (1 9 7 7 )). T h is s h ift in th e p e rc e p tio n o f a w ife ’s r o le in th e m a rria g e fo rc e d th e c o u rts to c o n s id e r t h e c o n ti n u e d v ia b ility o f a lie n a tio n s a c tio n s . Hoye , 824 S. W . 2d at424. B ut i n s t e a d o f

a l l o wi n g t h e t o r t– a l o n g wi th i t s wi f e - a s - c h a t t e l p r e mi s e – t o f a d e a wa y , s o me court s began t o j us t i f

y al i enat i on of af

f ect i on act i ons as a m eans t o pr es erve mar r i ages and d is c o u ra g e in te rf

e re n c e b y t h ir d -p a rt ie s . I d. See al s o O ’N e il , 733 P. 2d at696. W hi l e the r at i onal e f

or the ac t i on change d, the t or t ’ s el ement s ( i n m os ts t at es ) r emai ned unal t er ed 26 d e s p ite th e n e w fo c u s o n m a ri ta l h a rm o n y . Hoye , 824 S. W . 2d at425.

### 32

¶58. Forexampl e, cons entw as hi s t ori cal l y prohi bi t ed as a def ens e t o al i enat i on act i ons “bas e d on the l e ga l i nf

e r i or i ty of

the wi f e who was d e e med i nc a pa bl e o f c on s e nt i ng t o t he i nj ury of hers uper i or , herhus band. ” I d. ( c itin g H . C la rk , T

h e L a w o f D o m e stic R e la tio n s in the U ni t ed Stat es , § 4 .2 , p . 2 6 7 (1 9 8 7 )). A n d e v e n th o u g h th e c a u se o f a c tio n h a s s u p p o se d ly m o v e d b e y o n d th o s e o u td a te d ro o ts , c o n s e n t r e m a in s a p ro h ib it e d d e fe n s e to d a y , id
. , as t oday’ s cas e demonstrat es. A s one comm ent at ornot ed, “[ t ] he i dea thatone s pous e ca n r ecove rf oran actt he ot herspous e has w i l l i ngl y cons ent ed t o i s perhaps bett ers ui t ed t o an e ra th a t r e g a rd e d o n e s p o u s e a s th e p ro p e rt y o f a n o th e r.” P ro s s e r a n d K e e to n , The Law of T o rts , § 1 2 4 at 91 7 (5th ed . 1 9 8 4 ). ¶59 . T he K entucky S up rem e C ou rt , qu oti ng Just i ce H olm es, descri bed the u nfortun at e ri se of the legal fi ct i on bu t tres si ng the co m m on l aw t ortof al i enati on of af fect i on s: [ A ] comm on phenomenon . . . f ami l i art o the s tudent s of hi s t ory, i s thi s . T he cu stom s, b eli efs o r ne ed s o f a p ri m it ive tim e e stab li sh a ru le or a form u la. In th e c o u rse o f c e n tu rie s th e c u sto m , b e lief, o r n e c e ss ity , d isa p p e a rs, b u t th e ru le r emai ns . T he r eas on w hi ch gave r i s e t o the rul e has been f or got t en, and i n g e n i o u s mi n d s s e tth e ms e l v e s t o i n q u i r e h o w i ti s t o b e a c c o u n t e d f o r . S o me g ro u n d o f p o licy is th o u g h t o f, w h ich se e m s to e x p lain it a n d to re c o n c ile it w i th the pr es ents t at e of thi ngs and then t he rul e adapt s i t s el f t o the new rea so n s w h ich h av e b ee n fo u n d for it , an d en ters a n ew ca ree r. T h e o ld fo rm r ece i ves a new cont entand i n t i m e eve n the f or m m odi f

i es i t s el f t o f i tthe m eani ng w hi ch i thas r ece i ved. Hoye , 8 2 4 S .W .2 d a t 4 2 5 ( q u o tin g L ip p m a n , supra , at 67 2 ). A s the M issou ri S u p rem e C o u rt a s tu te ly n o te d , “ W h e n th e re a s o n fo r a ru le o f l a w d is a p p e a rs , s o to o s h o u ld th e ru le .” Hel s el , 1 0 7 S . W . 3 d at 2 3 3 . In M issi ssipp i, tho u g h , the leg al fict ion tha t th e co m m o n law tort of al i enati on of

af f ect i ons pr es erves a s pous e’ s r i ghtt o the mi nd and body of a partner cont i nues t o t hi s day, onl y now i ti s m as ked as the means t o s t abi l i ze the mar i t al uni on.

### 33

R ightt o abol is h com m on law act i ons ¶60. B eca us e I f

avors tr i ctobs ervance of t he cons t i tut i onal sepa r at i on of pow er s , r es ervi ng unt o the Legi s l atur e the pr er ogat i ve t o l egi s l at e, a nd c l ai m i ng f orthi s C our tthe pow erand duty t o att end t o al l t hi ngs j udi ci al , I f eel somew hatobl i gat ed t o j us t i f y m y pr ef

er ence t hat th is C o u rt, rath e r th a n th e L e g isla tu re , ab o lish th e to rt. ¶61. I ta ppear s thatthi s Courtf i r s tr ecogni zed the t or tof a l i enat i on of

a f f ect i ons i n B r is ter v. D unaw ay , 149 M i s s . 5, 115 So. 36 ( 1927) . N ot abl y, the M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e has never codi f i ed any of

the s o- cal l ed “he artbal m t or t s , ” i ncl udi ng al i enat i on of af fect i ons , and the a c t i o n s r e ma i n e x c l u s i v e l y c r e a tu r e s o f th e c o mm o n l a w. ¶62. I n S au n ders v. A l ford , 607 So. 2d 1214, 1219 ( M i s s . 1992) , thi s Court , r ecogni zi ng the obs ol et e natur e of

anotherof

the comm on l aw “hea r tbal m ” t ort s , abol i s hed cr i m i nal conver s at i on. I n expl ai ni ng the con st i tut i onal pow erof the C our tt o abol i s h the ca us e of act i on, thi s C our tst at ed t hat“t he cr eat i on of comm on l aw i s nota one- w ay s tr eet . . . . W hat the courtgi ves i tc an t ake aw ay. T hi s C our tf ace s no cons t i tut i onal i m pedi m entt o cea s i ng t o r ecogni ze cr i m i nal c onver s at i on a s a vi abl e t or t . ” I d. See al s o F underm an , 304 N . W . 2d a t79 3 ( “ O f

c ou r s e i ti s ou rdu ty t o moni t ora nd i nt e rpr e tthe c omm on l a w , a nd t o a ba nd on ant i quat ed doctr i nes and conc ept s. T he geni us of the comm on l aw i s i t s f l exi bi l i ty and c a p a c ity fo r g ro w th a n d a d a p tio n .” (C itatio n s o m itt e d )); R uss o v. Sutton , 422 S. E . 2d 750, 753 ( S. C. 1 99 2) ( “ The c omm on l a w c ha ng e s when n e c e s s a ry t o s e r ve the n e eds of t he peopl e. ”) . T hus , beca us e the comm on l aw i s a c r eatur e of the court s , E ngl i s h and A m er i can, thi s C our tand otherc our t s ar e f r ee t o change i tatw i l l , r ecogni zi ng thatthe l egi s l at i ve bodi es

### 34

of the var i ous s t at es ar e al s o f r ee t o enac ti nt o s t atut ory l aw any pr ovi s i on of the comm on l aw they thi nk appr opr i at e. ¶63. A w om an i s notprope r ty, and herdeci s i on t o engage i n and cons entt o extr a- m ar i t al af f ai r s – al though abhorr entt o the maj or i ty ( and t o m e) – s houl d notbe r el egat ed t o t he m usi ng s of an i nfer i or spouse, i ncap able of m aking such decis i on s. S p o u sa l a ffec tio n is in c a

p a b le o f th e ft ¶ 6 4 . T h e a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s c a u se o f a c tio n h a s n e v e r su ffic ien tly se p a ra ted fro m its pr operty- bas ed or i gi ns , and t he t or ti s cont i nued beca us e “s pous al af f ect i on” i s char act er i zed a s “ p ro p e rt y ” c a p a b le o f t h e ft . F underm an , 3 0 4 N .W .2 d a t 7 9 4 . H o w e v e r, th a t p re m ise is s i m pl y i l l ogi cal . “To pos i tt hatone per s on poss es s es r i ght s t o the f eel i ngs of

anotheri s an anac hr oni s m . ” Hoye , 824 S. W . 2d at426. E ven though c our t s t oday do notcal l the al i enat ed a ffe c tio n “ p ro p e rty ” o r “ a p o ss e ss io n ,” th a t i s h o w it i s tre a ted , jus t as it w a s w h e n c o u rts c re a te d th e c a u s e o f a c tio n to c o m p e n s a te h u s b a n d s fo r th e lo s s o f th e irw iv e s ’ “ s e rv ic e s .” I n the end, the s ucce s s f ul pl ai nt i f

f engages in w hat i s es s ent i al l y a “s al e” of hi s orher s p o u s e ’s a ff

e c tio n s . W

ym an v. W

al lace , 6 1 5 P . 2 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 5 (W ash . 1 9 8 0 ). ¶65. A ddi t i onal l y, “thef t ” i m pl i es the t aki ng of pr operty f

rom an u nw i l l i ng ow nerby an out s i der . H ow ever , the f acti s thatact i ons f

ora l i enat i on of

a f f ect i ons a r i s e f

r om the w i l l i ng part i ci pa t i on of

on e s pous e. W hi l e the t or tpurpor t edl y exi s t s t o di s cour age thi r d- part i es f r om di s turbi ng t he mar t i al r el at i on, i n real i t y t he m arr i age i s unl i kel y t o w eake n w i thoutone s pous e act i vel y c ons ent i ng t o the “w r ongf ul i nt er f er ence . ” O ’N

e il , 733 P. 2d at698. “H um an e x p e rie n c e is th a t th e a ffe c tio n s o f p e rso n s w h o a re d e v o ted a n d fa ith fu l ar e n o t su sc e p tib le

### 35

t o l ar ceny no mat t erhow cunni ng ors t eal thf ul . ” F underm an , 3 0 4 N .W .2 d a t 7 9 1 . See a l so R u sso , 4 2 2 S .E .2 d a t 7 5 2 ; W ym an , 615 P. 2d at455. ¶ 6 6 . Im p o rta n tly , I d o n o t ad v o c a te fo r th e ab o lit io n o f th is to rt b e c a u se I fe e l d e fe n d a n ts i n s uch s ui t s des erve prot ect i on, orbeca us e I vi ew pr om i s cui ty as harm l es s . I m er el y f i nd the f oundat i on f

ors uch s ui t s – thats om eone s houl d r ecove rf oran i nj ury t o “pr operty” w hi ch th e y c a n n o t o w n – c o m p le te ly e rr o n e o u s . See F underm an , 304 N . W . 2d at794. N o evi dence the tor tdet ers w r ongf uli nt er f er ence wi th orpr es er ves m ar r i age ¶67. A s the W as hi ngt on Supr eme C our tnot ed w hen abol i s hi ng the t or tof al i enat i on of a ff e c tio n s, “ [t] h e u n d e rly in g a ss u m p tio n o f p re se rv in g m a rital h a rm o n y is e rro n e o u s.” W ym an , 6 1 5 P .2 d a t 4 5 5 . T h e tor t i s in h e re n tly u n p lan n e d , es p e c ially w h e re se x u a l ac tiv ity i s i nvol ved, so t he i dea thatthe part i es w oul d cont empl at e the pos s i bi l i ty of a l aw s ui tand be d e te rr e d is u n re a lis tic . O ’N e il , 7 3 3 P .2 d a t 6 9 8 T h e tru th re m a in s th a t a s p o u se inc lin e d to engage i n an extr amar i t al af f ai rw i l l do s o, an d even if “a w oul d- be par amour w oul d be th e re b y d is s u a d e d [ b y t h e th re a t o f s u it], a s u b s titu te is lik e ly to b e re a d ily fo u n d .” F underm an , 304 N . W . 2d at792. ¶68. T he theory thata l i enat i on a ct i ons mustbe r et ai ned as a means of pr es ervi ng m arr i ages and prot ecti n g fam i l i es m ustfai l forl ack o f s up po rt . W hil e an ad m i rabl e sent i m ent, t hese s ui t s i nevi t abl y do m or e t o hur tf ami l i es t han t o hel p t hem. I n m y vi ew , w hen a m arr i age ha s cr as hed and burned, the l aw s houl d notprovi de an i m pr i m aturt o fa n t he coa l s of angerand re se n tm e n t, ex ten d in g fu rth e r in to th e fu tu re th e tim e w h e n h e a lin g c a n b e g in . T h is is part i cul ar l y true w her e chi l dr en ar e i nvol ved. E no ug h di f f i cul ty exi s t s al r eady i n the devel opm entof

a ci vi l r el at i ons hi p among di vor ced pa r ent s and the chi l dr en of the mar r i age.

### 36

C aus e of act i on is pr i m ar i l

y puni t i ve and br oughtt o gai n r eve nge ¶69. D es pi t e the f

actthatan ac t i on f

oral i enat i on of

af f ect i ons i s a ci vi l s ui tand theor et i cal l y compensa t ory, t he true natur e of the cl ai m i s puni t i ve. “The t hi r d party i s s een as a mal i ci ous s educe rw r eaki ng havoc upon the harm oni ous m ar i t al coupl e. T hes e comm on l aw act i ons thus reas on thatthe thi r d- party m us tbe puni s hed f orhi s [ orher ] m i s deeds by paymentt o t he aggr i eved s pous e. ” Hoye , 824 S. W . 2d at425. ¶7 0 . U n d en iably , the p ri m ary m o ti v es in b ri n g ing a n a cti o n fo r aliena ti o n o f affec ti o n s are t o gai n r evenge on the unf ai thf ul s pous e and the defenda ntand t o f or ce outr ageous s e ttle m e n ts . O ’N

e il , 73 3 P . 2 d a t6 9 8 . Al i e n a t i o n o f a f f e c t i o n c l a i ms h a v e b e c o me p r i me to o ls f o r e x to rt io n o r b la c k m a il. R u sso , 4 2 2 S .E .2 d a t 7 5 3 ; W ym an , 615 P. 2d at455. Such
v e x a tio u s la w s u its c a n m a k e c o n te n tio u s d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g s e v e n m o re b ilio u s . O ’N e il , 7 3 3 P . 2 d at 69 8 . T h e a cti o n ca n also rea rran g e th e m a rital asse ts, m ak ing itd if fi cu ltfor a c o u rt to p ro p e rl y a s s e s s th e n e e d s a n d a b iliti e s o f t h e in d iv id u a l s p o u s e s . I d. at69 7. T hese s ui t s ar e neve rus ed t o a chi eve r econc i l i at i on orpr es erve the mar r i age; r ather , they ar e f uel ed b y v in d ic tiv e n e s s a n d a d e s ir e to d e s tr o y re p u ta tio n s a n d re la tio n s h ip s . Hel s el , 107 S. W . 3d at223. In ju rie s to p a rtie s’ r e

p u ta tio n s a n d

d ig n ity ¶ 7 1 . N o p a rty in v o lv e d in a n a c tio n fo r a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s e m e rg e s u n sc a th e d . W h ile the harm to t he def

endantand unf

ai thf ul s pous e i s cl ear , “the ac t i on [ al s o] di m i ni s hes t he pl ai nt i f f’ s di gni ty and i nj ur i es hi s [ orher ] ow n r eput at i on thr ough the pr oces s of s eeki ng m on ey damages . ” O ’N e il , 73 3 P . 2 d at 6 9 7 . T h e inti m ate d etail s of th e m arriag e , an d its

### 37

br eak do w n, a r e r e ve a l e d f ora l l t o s e e a s the pa r t i e s a t t e mptt o a s s a s s i na t e the c ha r a c t e rof th e ira d v e rs a ri e s . Hel

s el , 1 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 3 ; R u sso , 4 2 2 S .E .2 d a t 7 5 3 . ¶72. O f

t en l os ti n thi s bi t t erf

i ghti s the ef

f ectthe s ui tcan ha ve on chi l dr en of the mar r i age. E ven beyond the m er e expos ur e t o the ai r i ng of thei rpar ent s ’ di r ty l aundry, chi l dr en ca n be re q u ir e d to te s tif

y fo r o n e p a re n t o r a n o th e r i n o p e n c o u rt . O ’N e il , 7 3 3 P .2 d a t 6 9 8 . See a l so F underm an , 304 N . W . 2d a t791 ( det ai l i ng s uch t es t i m ony) . C l ear l y, any i nj ur i es thatm i ght have be en ca us ed by the w r ongf ul conductar e exa cerbat ed by al i enat i on of af f ect i ons act i on s. D i f f i cul t y of j ur i es t o pr oper l

y ev al uat e al i enat i on act i ons ¶ 7 3 . Al i e n a t i o n o f

a f f e c t i o n s c a s e s p r e s e n ta p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l tc h a l l e n g e f

o rj u r i e s . As the I ow a Supr eme C our tobs erved, [ o ] u rs y s t e m o f

e s t a b l i s h i n g f

a c t s , h o we v e r , h a s a s tr o n g , s o me t i me s i ts e e ms an i rr es i s t i bl e, t endenc y t o br eak dow n i n a l i enat i on c as es . T hi s i s beca us e of the i ncendi ary ef

f ectof the us ual evi dence i n s uch ca s es . U nd erthe es t abl i s hed theory of

r ecove r y, the j ury s houl d f i r s tundert ake t o deci de w hi ch c a m e first, th e m a rria g e b re a k d o w n o r th e m isc o n d u c t. B u t ju rie s n e c e ss a rily fa c e th e first d e ter m in a tio n a fte r le a rn in g o f c o n d u c t o f w h ich th e y stro n g ly dis app rove an d w hich soci et y co nd em ns. F underm an , 3 0 4 N .W .2 d a t 7 9 1 . ¶74. T he el ementof “i nducement ” of

t en pr oves perpl exi ng, as the f act f i nderm ust det erm i ne w hetherthe def endantorthe al i enat ed s pous e w as pr i m ar i l y r es pons i bl e f ort he o ther sp o u se stray ing . T h e Ida h o S u p rem e C o u rtc it ed a c ase to il lustrat e the d il em m a w h ere the pl ai nt i f

f and s pous e w er e s epar at ed, the s pous e w i l l i ngl y engage d i n an af f ai r , and yett he ju ry s till f

o u n d fo r t h e p la in tif

f. O ’N e il , 733 P. 2d at 698 (ci t i ng S e b a stia n v. K lu tz , 170 S .E .2 d 1 0 4 (N .C . C t. A p p . 1 9 6 9 )). T h e ju ry in th is c a se fe ll i n to th e sa m e tra p . T h e m a jo rity

### 38

acc ur at el y poi nt s outthatther e w as no evi dence thatFi t ch “i nduced” V al ent i ne’ s es tr anged
w i f e t o engage i n an i l l i ci taf f ai rw i th hi m . N everthel es s , the j ury aw ar ded V al ent i ne $7 54 , 50 0, plus i nter est , forhis al l eged l oss. ¶75. T he aw ar di ng of damages pr es ent s anotherdi s t i nctpr obl em in these act i ons , as no c le a r s ta n d a rd s fo r c o m p e n s a tin g th e p la in tif f e x is t. W

ym an , 615 P. 2d at455. T hi s opens th e d o o r f

o r q u a si-p u n iti v e d a m a g e a w a rd s, d isg u ise d a s a c tu a l d a m a g e s, w h ich a re u su a lly ta in te d b y p a s s io n a n d p re ju d ic e . O ’N

e il , 73 3 P. 2 d a t6 9 8 . Of c o u r s e , I c a n h a r d l y b l a me j ur or s f ors truggl i ng w i th thi s caus e of act i on. T he theory of r ecove ry, i t s el f

, i s f l aw ed. F underm an , 304 N . W . 2d at791. A bol i t i on w i l lhave no e f f ect on r ightt o r ecov erf

orl os s of cons or t i um ¶76. A bol i t i on of

t he comm on l aw t or tof

al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons w i l l i n no w ay r es tr i ctt he ri gh tt o recov er f

or l oss of conso rt ium . “T he ri gh tt o recov er f or l oss of consort i um i s a f act ori n as s es s i ng da m ages w hen the under l yi ng l i abi l i ty ha s be en es t abl i s hed i n a per s onal injury su it . R en u n ciati o n of th e ri g h t to reco v er for ali en ati o n pro ce ed s from the b eli ef the re i s no bas i s f

orthe under l yi ng l i abi l i ty. ” I d. at794. G i ven the s peci fi c attri but es of an a lien a tio n a c tio n a n d th e r ig h t to re c o v e r fo r lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m , itis n o t in c o n sis ten t to a b o lis h th e fo rm e r a n d c o n tin u e to re c o g n iz e th e la tte r. I d. C omparis on w i th act i ons f ort or t i ous i nt er

f er ence w i th a contr actual r elat i ons hi

p is m is placed ¶ 7 7 . A c laim o f to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e w ith a c o n tra c tu a l re latio n sh ip is n o t co m p a ra b le to a cl ai m of

al i enat i on of

af f ect i on s. In cont r acts ui t s , the aggr i eved pa r ty can s ue both t he i nt er f er erand the otherparty t o the contr act . H ow ever , i n al i enat i on act i on s , the “other

### 39

party” t o the “c ontr act ” i s the s pous e ( w hos e af f ect i on w as al l egedl y al i enat ed f r om the p la in tif f) w h o is n o t s u b

je c t t o s u it, a s in tr u e c o n tr a c t c a s e s . Hoye , 8 2 4 S . W . 2 d a t4 2 6 . As the K entucky Supr eme C our tpoi nt ed out , “[ t ] hi s l ogi cal as ym m etry has pr om pt ed the m aj or i ty of

j ur i s di ct i ons t o el i m i nat e thes e mar i t al t or t s . ” I d. A m aj or i t

y of s tat es have abol is hed the com m on- law act i on ¶78. D es pi t e the maj or i ty’ s as s ert i ons t o the contr ary, ther e i s s i m pl y no evi dence thatt he a lie n a tio n o f a ff

e c tio n s c a u s e o f a c tio n p ro te c ts m a rr ia g e s . O ’N e il , 7 3 3 P .2 d at 6 9 8 . “In fa c t, once s ui thas been br ought , i tnot i f i es t he publ i c t hatt he mar r i age i s uns t abl e, embar r as s es the s pous es a nd thei rc hi l dr en, and adds m or e t ens i on t o the f ami l y r el at i ons hi p. ” I

d. T he m ajority o f st ates h av e d iscard ed this fi cti o n al rati o n ale fo r prese rvin g th e co m m o n l aw tort o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s, a n d w e sh o u ld fo llo w su it. ¶ 7 9 . T h e fo llo w in g tw e n ty -fiv e sta tes a n d th e D istric t o f C o lu m b ia h a v e leg isla tiv e ly abol i s hed the comm on l aw t orto f a l i enat i on of af f ect i ons : A l abama, A l a. C ode § 6- 5- 331 ( 1975) ; A r i zona, A r i z. Rev. St at . § 25- 341 ( 1956) ; A r kans as , A r k. C ode A nn. § 16- 118- 106 ( 1989) ; C al i f

orni a, C al . C i v. C ode § 43. 5 ( 1982) ; C olor ado , C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 20- 202 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; Co n n e c t i c u t , Co n n . Ge n . S t a t . An n . § 5 2 - 5 7 2 b ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; Di s tr i c to f Co l u mb i a , D. C. C ode A nn. § 16- 923 ( 1981) ; G eor gi a, G a. Code A nn. § 51- 1- 17 ( 1979) ; I ndi ana, I nd. C ode A n n . § 3 4 -1 2 -2 -1 (1 9 9 8 ); K a n sa s, K a n . S tat. A n n . § 2 3 -2 0 8 (1 9 8 2 ); M a in e , M e . R e v . S tat. A n n . ti t. 1 4 , § 3 0 1 (19 9 5 ); M a ry lan d , M d . C o d e A n n . , F am . L aw § 3 -10 3 (19 8 4 ); M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M a s s . Ge n . L a ws An n . c h . 2 0 7 , § 4 7 B ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; M i c h i g a n , M i c h . Co mp . L a ws A n n . § 6 0 0 .2 9 0 1 (1 9 6 1 ); M in n e so ta, M in n . S ta t. A n n . § 5 5 3 .0 1 (1 9 7 8 ); M o n tan a , M o n t. C ode A nn. § 27- 1- 601 ( 1983) ; N ebr as ka, N eb. Rev. St at . § 25- 21, 188 ( 1986) ; N evada , N ev.

### 40

R ev . S tat . 4 1 . 3 8 0 (19 7 9 ); N o rth D ak o ta, N . D . C en t. C o d e § 1 4 -02 -06 (19 8 3 ); O reg o n , O r. R ev. St at . § 31. 980 ( 2004) ; R hode I s l and, R . I . G en. L aw s § 9- 1- 42 ( 1997) ; T ennes s ee, T enn. C ode A nn. § 36- 3- 701 ( 1989) ; T exas , T ex. F am . C ode A nn. § 1. 107 ( 1997) ; V i r gi ni a, V a. C ode A nn. § 8. 01- 220 (1977) ; W es tV i r gi ni a, W . V a. C ode § 56- 3- 2a ( 1969) ; and W i s cons i n, W is. S tat . A n n . § 7 6 8 . 0 1 (19 7 9 ). ¶ 8 0 . T h e fo llo w in g s ix s tate s h a v e ju d icia lly a b o lish e d th e c o m m o n law to rt: Id a h o , in O ’N e il , 733 P. 2d at698; I ow a, i n Funderm ann , 304 N . W . 2d at791; K entucky, i n Hoye , 824 S. W . 2d at423; M i s s our i , i n Hel s el , 107 S. W . 3d at233; Sout h C ar ol i na, i n R u sso , 422 S. E . 2d a t 7 5 3 ; an d W a sh in g to n , in W ym an , 615 P. 2d at455. ¶81. T hus , thi r ty- one s t at es have c om pl et el y abol i s hed the comm on l aw t or tof al i enat i on o f a ffe c tio n s. B u t itd o e sn ’t sto p th e re . T h e fo llo w in g e ig h t sta tes h a v e leg isla tiv e ly abol i s hed al l al i enat i on of af f ect i ons s uit s form oney damages : D el aw ar e, D el . C ode A nn. t i t . 10, § 3924 ( 1974) ; Fl or i da, F l a. S t at . A nn. § 771. 01 (1964) ; N ew H ampshi r e, N . H . R ev. S t a t . An n . § 4 6 0 : 2 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; Ne w J e r s e y , N. J . S t a t . An n . § 2 A: 2 3 - 1 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ; Ne w Yo r k , N. Y. C iv . R ig h ts L a w § 8 0 -a (1 9 6 5 ); O h io , O h io R e v . C o d e A n n . § 2 3 0 5 .2 9 (1 9 9 0 ); V e rm o n t, V t. S tat . A n n . ti t. 1 5 , § 1 0 0 1 (19 7 3 ); an d W y o m ing , W y o . S tat . A n n . § 1 -23 -10 1 (19 7 7 ). ¶82. O kl ahoma has abol i s hed the t or tw hen a s pous e of s ound m i nd/ l egal age i s i nvol ved. O kl a. St at . t i t . 76, § 8. 1 ( 1976) Penns yl vani a has a bo l i shed the t or texce pti n thos e ca s es w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t is th e p a re n t o r s ib lin g o f th e p la in tif f’ s sp o u s e P a . S ta t. A n n . tit. 2 3 , § 1901 ( 1990) . I l l i noi s onl y pe r m i t s a ctual da m ages t o be r ecove r ed i n al i enat i on of af f ect i on a c t i on s 7 40 I l l . Comp. St a t . Ann. 5 / 2 ( 19 90) . A l as ka and Loui s i ana have ne vereven

### 41

re c o g n iz e d th e to rt . See Moul in v. Monte le one , 1 1 5 S o . 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (L a . 1 9 2 7 ), o v e rr u ledin par ton othergr ounds by 9 to 5 Fas hi ons v. Spurney , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 4 (L a. 19 8 9 ). ¶83. O nl y s i x s t at es conti nu e t o f ul l y r ecogni ze the comm on l aw t or tof al i enat i on of affec ti o n s: H aw aii , M issi ssipp i, N ew M ex ico, N o rth C aro li n a, S o u th D ak o ta, an d U tah. It i s , i n m y vi ew , t i m e thatM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s name be r emoved f r om thi s ever - dw i ndl i ng l i stand r ecogni ze w hats o m any otherj ur i s di ct i ons have l ong si nce r eal i zed: al i enat i on of af f ect i ons su it s ha v e o u tl ived an y rel ev an ce or use fuln ess the y m ay ha v e o n ce po sses sed . T h e C o u rt r ecogni zed thi s truth w i th r es pectt o t he t or tof cr i m i nal conver s at i on, and w e abol i s hed that c a u s e o f a c ti o n a c c o rd in g ly . S au n ders , 607 So. 2d at1219. T he s ame cour s e of act i on s houl d b e f

ol l owed h e r e , a nd thi s Cour ts ho ul d l i ke w i s e a bo l i s h the c omm on l a w c a us e of act i on foral i enati on of af fect i on s. II. ¶84. H avi ng f

ai l ed t o gai n agr eementf r om a maj or i ty of

J us t i ces on eli m i nat i on of t he caus e of act i on, I m us tnow anal yze the ca s e bef or e us . D espi t e m y vi ew thatthe ca us e of a c tio n f o r a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s s h o u ld b e e lim in a ted in M iss iss ip p i, a m a jo rity o f th is C our tw i s hes i tt o r emai n vi abl e. Si nce my oath of off i ce r equi r es m e t o f

ol l ow the l aw as i texis t s, no tas I t hink itsho uld be, I can no td epri ve the p l ai nti ff of m y v ote s i m ply becau se m y p e rso n a l v iew is th a t th e law sh o u ld b e c h a n g e d . A v o te to d iss e n t w o u ld b e ju stifie d in th i s c a s e o n l y i f

I c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e x i s t i n g l a w h a s b e e n i mp r o p e r l y a p p l i e d . I n my v i e w, Ju stic e R a n d o lp h ’s a n a ly sis o f th e law a n d h is a p p lica tio n o f th e law to th is c a se is e x a c tly corr ect . I ndeed, I am gra t ef ul thatJ us t i ce Randol ph has t aken thi s oppor tuni ty t o c l ar i f y an a r e a o f th e l a w wh i c h , b e c a u s e o f p r e v i o u s c a s e s h a n d e d d o wn b y th i s Co u r t , h a s b e c o me

### 42

mu d d l e d . Th e ma

j o r i ty c l e a r l y s e t s f

o r th th e r e q u i r e me n tth a ta l i e n a t i o n o f a f f e c t i o n s c l a i ms m a y b e mai nt a i ne d o nl y wher e t he de f e nd a ntc a n b e s ho w n t o h a ve c omm i t t e d a w r on gf ul actw hich served t o induce or ent i ce a s po use t o aban do n the m arr i age rel at i on shi p. Fo r these re a s o n s , w ith r e s p e c t to th e m a jo ri ty ’s d is p o s itio n o f t h is c a s e u n d e r o u r c u rr e n t la w , I co n cu r. ¶ 8 5 . I c o m m e n d th e m a jo ri ty fo r c la ri fi c a tio n o f t h is is s u e . GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON I N P ART . E AS L E Y, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶86. O n appea l , J err y Fi t ch, J r . ( Fi t ch) r ai s ed num er ous as s i gnm ent s of err or : ( 1) w hether th e to rt o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s s h o u ld b e a b o lish e d ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in al l ow i ng J ohnny V al ent i ne ( V al ent i ne) t o us e uns w orn pl eadi ngs t o i m peac hm entFi t ch; ( 3)
w hetherthe tri al co ur terr ed i n gr ant i ng V al ent i ne’ s j ury i ns truct i ons , P- 5 and P- 8; ( 4)
w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng Fi t ch’ s j ury i ns truct i on, D - 8; ( 5) w hethert he compensa t ory aw ar d i n thi s cas e w as contr ary t o t he w ei ghtof the evi dence ; ( 6) w hethert he compensa t ory aw ar d i n the ca s e w as contr ary t o the w ei ghtof cr edi bl e evi den ce an d t he produ ctof bi as, p assi on , an d prej ud i ce; (7) w hetherthe pu nit i ve dam age aw ard i n thi s case v iolates d u e p roc ess; an d (8) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rte rred in d en y ing a su b stan ti al rem ittur. I . A l i e nat i on o f

A f f e c t i ons . ¶87. W hi l e t he V al enti nes’ m arr i age w as un qu est i onabl y nota “s hi ni ng exampl e” of m arr i age, and di vor ce i s unfortunat el y i ncr eas i ngl y pre val enti n ours oci ety, I agr ee thatt he C our ts houl d decl i ne the i nvi t at i on t o abol i s h the t or tof al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons . A l i enat i on of af f ect i ons i s the onl y a venue avai l abl e t o pr ovi de r edr es s f ora s pous e w ho has s uf f er ed

### 43

l os s and i nj ury t o hi s orherm ar i t al r el at i ons hi p agai ns tthe thi r d party w ho i nduced t he hus band orw i f

e t o a bandon the m arr i age and/ ora f f ect i ons due t o hi s orheract i ve, di r ect , and i nt ent i onal i nt er f

er ence w i th t he mar r i age. ¶88. I n Ca m

p v. R o b e rts , 462 So. 2d 726, 727 ( M i s s . 1985) , thi s C our thel d: [ W ] her e a hus band [ w i f e] i s w r ongf

ul l y depr i ved of

hi s r i ght s t o the " s ervi ces and compani ons hi p and cons or t i um of hi s [ her ] w i f

e [ hus band] , " he [ s he] has a c a u se o f a c tio n "a g a in st o n e w h o h a s in ter fe re d w ith h is [h e r] d o m e stic re la tio n s ." Ca mp , 462 So. 2d at727 ( ci t i ng W alterv. W

il s on , 2 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 9 7 , 5 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 6 9 ),
o v e r r u le d

in p a r t o n o th e rg r o u n d s , S au n ders v. A l

ford , 60 7 S o. 2d 12 14 , 12 19 (M i ss. 1 9 9 2 )). T h e to rt o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s is e q u a lly a p p lica b le to w o m e n a s m e n a s to a v o id a n y a rc h a ic n o tio n th a t a w if e is th e p ro p e rt y o f h e r h u s b a n d . See K irk v. K och , 607 So. 2d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶89. C hi ef

J us t i ce Sm i th, then J us t i ce Sm i th, a uthor ed an ex cel l ent s pecial concurr i ng opi ni on i n Bland , w hi ch cl ear l y e xpl ai ned the j us t i f i cat i on a nd ne ed t o c ont i nue t o r ecogni ze al i enat i on of

af f ect i ons as a vi abl e t or t , s t at i ng: [ W ] her e the pr oof

i s s o gr eati n sup po r tof an ac t i on f

oral i enat i on of af f ect i ons , w e mustask t he fol l ow i ng ques t i ons . Shoul d an i ndi vi dual be a llo w e d to in tru d e u p o n a m a rria g e to su c h a n e x ten t as to ca u se itto c o m e to an end? D oes a s pous e have a va l uabl e i nt er es ti n a mar r i age thati s w or thy of p ro tec tio n fro m th e in tru d in g th ird p a rty ? In m y v ie w , th e a n sw e r to b o th q u e s tio n s is in th e a ff

ir m a tiv e . T

he tr aditi onal

f am il y is u n ders uch attack both local

l y and nati onall

y t hes e days that

this Court

s hould not

r etr eat now fro m th e so u n d

v iew o f th e to r t o

f a lien a tio n o

f a ffe c tio n s e sp o u se d

b y th is Court in Sau nders as entitling a spous e to "protecti on of the love, s ociet

y, c o m p a n io n s h ip , a n d

c o m fo r t th a t f

o r m th e fo u n da tio n o

f a m a r r iag e ." S au n ders v. A l

ford , 607 So. 2d 1214, 1215 ( M i s s . 1992) ( quot i ng N or ton v. Mac f ar lane , 8 1 8 P .2 d 8 , 1 2 (U tah 1 9 9 1 )); see al so Ho rn e r v . B

y rn e tt , 511 S. E . 2d 342 ( N . C . C t . A pp . 19 99 ). I do notbel i eve thatunderthe compel l i ng f act s of thi s part i cul arcas e thi s C our ts houl d hol d thatthe doctr i ne of

### 44

al i enat i on of

a f f ect i ons ha s out l i ved i t s us ef ul nes s a s a de t err entpr ot ect i ng the m a rtial [sic ] rela tio n sh ip o f a h u sb a n d a n d w ife in c a se s w h e re th e fa c ts c lea rly w arr ant . 607 So. 2d at1219. Bland , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d at 42 1 -42 2 (S m ith , J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). II. J u d g m en t N o t W it h stan d ing th e V er d ict (JN O V ). ¶90. T he r equi r ed el ement s of an ali enati on o f af

fect i ons l aw s ui ti ncl ude: ( 1) w r ongf ul co nd uc tof

t he de f e nd a nt , ( 2) l os s of

a f f e c t i on orc on s ort i um, a nd ( 3) a c a us a l connec t i on b e tw e e n th e c o n d u c t a n d th e lo s s . B la n d v. H ill , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (e m p h a sis added) . I n Bland , thi s C our thel d t hat“the purpos e of a ca us e of

act i on f oral i enat i on of af f ect i ons i s the ‘ pr ot ect i on of the l ove, s oci ety, c om pani ons hi p, a nd comfortthatf or m t he f oundat i on of

a mar r i age . . . ’ ” Bland , 735 So. 2d at417 ( quot i ng S au n ders , 607 So. 2d at 1 2 1 5 ). ¶91. T he “w r ongful con duct ” r equi r ed t o m ai nt ai n an act i on f or the t or t of al i enat i on of af f ect i ons i s the dir ect

and intenti onal

inter f er ence wi th the m ar r iage r el ati onshi p by t he defend antand an induc e m e nt to a b a ndo n t

he s p o us e b y s o m e a c ti v e inte r

f e r e nc e b y the de f e nda nt . See Childr en’s Medical G r oup v. P hil

li ps , 9 4 0 S o . 2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ); Stanton v. Cox , 162 M i s s . 438, 450, 139 So. 458, 460 ( 1932) . I n Stanton , 139 So. at460, thi s C our thel d: “I n or dert o s us t ai n an ac t i on f orthe al i enat i on of

the hus band' s [ w i f

e’ s] af f ect i ons i tm us tappea r , i n addi t i on t o the f actof al i enat i on orthe f

actof the h u sb a n d ' s [w ife ’s] in fa tu a tio n fo r th e d e fe n d a n t, th a t ther e had been a dir ect inte r f e r e nc e on t

he de f e nda nt ' s pa r t , s uf f i c ie nt to s atis f y the j ur y that the al ie nati on w as caus e d b

y the de f e nda nt , and the bur den of pr oof i s on the pl ai nt i ff t o s how s uch i nt er f

er ence . ” 15 A m . & E ng. E ncy. of L aw , p. 865. A g a in , o n p a g e 8 6 6 , itis s a id : “ B ut to m aintain this acti on it m ust be esta b lish e dtha t t

h e h u sb a n d

[w if e] w a s ind u ce d

to a b a n do n the w if

e [ hus ba nd]by s om e ac ti v e i nter f e r e nc e on t

he pa r t of the de f e nda nt . ” I n 3

### 45

E l l i ot ton E vi dence , s ect i on 1643, i ti s s ai d: “ T o e nt i t l e the pl ai nt i f f t o r ecove r in an ac ti o n for a li en ati n g affec ti o n s, the b u rde n o f pro o f i s u p o n the p lai n ti ff, an d the p lai n ti ff m u st sho w that there w as a d ir ec t interferen ce up o n th e p art of the def endantt hatnotonl y w as t her e i nf atuat i on of

the hus band orw i f

e f or th e d e fe n d a n t, b u t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t b y w ro n g fu l a c t w a s th e c a u s e o f i t." (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so K irk , 607 So. 2d at1223; Mar tin v. Ill . C en t . R . R . Co. , 246 M i s s . 102, 110- 11, 149 So. 2d 344, 348 ( 1963) . I n K irk , t hi s C our ts t at ed thatthe def endant
m us t“di r ect l y and i nt ent i onal l y [ i nt er f er e] w i th” pl ai nt i f

f’ s m arr i age, ther eby induc ingthe a lie n a tio n o f a ff

e c tio n s o f th e p la in tif

f’ s s p o u s e . K

irk , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d at 12 2 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶92. T he m aj or i ty corr ect l y r ecogni zes that i nducement i s a s peci f i cal l y r equi r ed el ement t o es t abl i s h al i enat i on of af f ect i ons, r atherthan al i enat i on of af f ect i ons bei ng es t abl i s hed so lel y fr o m th e fac t that an affair or se x u al relat ion sh ip o cc u rred . H o w ev er, th e m ajority ’s r eas oni ng r emai ns f

at al l y f l aw ed. T he maj or i ty f

ocus es i t s r eas oni ng t o es t abl i s h i nducement f r om the undi s put ed f

actthatFi t ch i s a w eal thy m an, and Sandr a coul d notr es i s thi s m oney. T he m aj or i ty m i s s es t he poi ntt hatt her e m us tbe es t abl i s hed s om e “w r ongf ul conduct ” on the par tof Fi t c h tha ta mount e d t o the di r e c ta nd i nt e nt i on a l i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th the marr i age r el at i ons hi p and r es ul t ed i n t he i nducementof Sandr a t o abandon V al ent i ne by s om e ac t i ve i nt er f er ence on the partof

Fi t ch. S and ra t est i f

i ed thatFi t ch di d notas k hert o l eave V al ent i ne, and s he w as the i ni t i at orof the eve ntual r el at i ons hi p. ¶93. H er e, the maj or i ty bas es the i nducementon Sa n dra ’s all eg ed i n ab il ity t o resist F it ch ’s m oney and the f

actthatSandr a had a l otof m oney i n cas h w hen s he w orked forFi t ch. H ow ever , both Sandr a and Fi t ch t es t i f i ed thatFi t ch di d notgi ve Sandr a any money above a n d b e y o n d w h a t sh e e a rn e d in h e r s a la ry f ro m w o rk in g fo r F itch O il C o m p a n y a n d in co m m issi o n s from the s ale o f real estate fo r F it ch R ea lty . A cc o rdin g to the rec o rd, S an d ra

### 46

began wor ki ng a tFi t c h O i l Compa ny s omet i me i n 19 97 . Sa nd r a t e s t i f i e d tha ther r el at i ons hi p w i th Fi t ch di d nots t artunt i l s om et i m e i n the s pr i ng of 1998. She t es t i f

i ed that she bel i eved thats he had w or ked ther e appr oxi m at el y s i xt een mont hs bef or e s he initiated flirtatio n a n d th e a ffa ir w ith F itch . F lem in g , w h o w o rk e d a s th e b o o k k e e p e r fo r F itch O il C o m p a n y tes tified a s to h o w S a n d ra w a s p a id h e r sa lar y . F lem in g v e rifie d th a t F itc h p a id al l hi s empl oyees i n cas h. ¶ 9 4 . F i t c h t e s t i f

i e d r e g a r d i n g th e mo n e y h e g a v e t o S a n d r a b e f o r e th e y we r e ma rr i e d . He s t at ed thatSandr a w or ked outof Fi t ch O i l C om pany, buts he al s o w or ked i n Fi t ch R eal ty as a re a lto r. F itch sta ted th a t S a n d ra , li k e a ll o f h is e m p lo y e e s, w a s p a id in c a sh fo r h e r w e e k ly s al ary pl us comm i s s i ons on w hats he s ol d. A ccor di ng t o Fi t ch’ s t es t i m ony, he neve rgave Sandr a any extr avaga ntgi f t s nor t ook any t r i ps w i th her . H e f ur therdeni ed thathe eve rgave S a n d ra $ 8 ,0 0 0 in c a sh to p u rc h a se a Je e p C h e ro k e e . F itch tes tified th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll givi ng S and ra any m on ey o ver and abo ve h er s al ary and com m i ssi on s. ¶95 . F urther, S and ra and F i t ch bo th d en ied that F i t ch had ever m ade any threat s agai nst S a n d ra th a t h e w o u ld tak e h e r ch ild aw a y fro m h e r. S a n d ra a lso d e n ied a n y p h y sic a l th re a ts from F it ch . S an d ra testi fi ed that F it ch n ev er a sk ed h er to le a v e V a lentine. S an d ra s ubs equent l y m arr i ed Fi t ch af t ers he di vor ced V al ent i ne, a nd s he w as s t i l l mar r i ed t o Fi t ch atthe ti m e of the tr i al . F urther, S and ra m etV al enti ne u nd er s i m i l ar ci rcum st ances. ¶96. Pr i ort o tr i al , V al ent i ne f i l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o pr eventFi t ch f r om i ntr oduci ng any evi dence thatV al ent i ne and hi s form erw i f e, Sandr a, engage d i n and part i ci pat ed i n a l engthy adul t er ous rel at i ons hi p pr i ort o t hei rm arr i age w hi l e Sandr a w as s t i l l m arr i ed t o a pr i or hus band, T r ace y H ughey. A f t erSandr a’ s di vor ce f

r om herhusband, H ughey, s he mar r i ed

### 47

V al ent i ne. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the t es t i m ony r egar di ng V al ent i ne’ s adul t er ous af f ai rw i th Sandr a. ¶97. A s w i l l be di s cus s ed i n gr eat erdet ai l bel ow , Sandr a t es t i f i ed thats he w as the i ni t i at or o f th e re latio n sh ip w ith F itch . T h is fa c t is c o m p lete ly ig n o re d in its re a so n in g b y th e m a jo rity
w h ich a c k n o w led g e s th a t th e s p o u se m u st h a v e b e e n in d u c e d to a b a n d o n th e m a rria g e . It i s har d t o i m agi ne how Sandr a w as the one i nduced w hen she t es t i f i ed t hats he pur s ued Fi t ch,
w ho w as m arr i ed atthe t i m e, and s he w as the i ni t i at orof thei reventual r el at i ons hi p. ¶9 8. Fi t c h made a p os t - tr i a l mot i on f orJN O V . I n Fi t ch’ s r epl y m emora ndum , Fi t ch cont ended that“[ the] pl ai nt i f f w as unabl e t o s how that[ the] def endant ’ s di r ecti nt er f

er ence w i th the mar i t al r el at i ons hi p caus ed the al i enat i on of the pl ai nt i f

f’ s af f ect i ons . ” Fi t ch s t at ed th a t “th e p lain tiff’s th e o ry o f th e c a se ” w a s th a t “S a n d ra [V a len tin e F itch ] w a s a ttrac ted to [ the] defend ant’ s m on ey. ” F i t ch further noted t hat the ev i den ce of adu l t ery sat i sf i ed the f i rs t p ro n g o f th e inq u iry , h o w e v e r, “th e p lain tiff w a s u n a b le to p ro v e los s o f af fe c tio n as a re su lt of thatc onduct . ” The tr i al courts ubs equent l y ent er ed i t s or derdenyi ng Fi t ch’ s m ot i on f or JNOV. ¶99. Pur s uant t o M . R . C . P. 50( b) , “a party m ay f i l e a m oti on t o have the ver di ct and any ju d g m e n t en ter e d th e re o n se t as id e ,” n o “ late r th a n ten d a y s a fte r e n try o f ju d g m e n t in acc or dance w i th a ver di ct . ” M . R . C . P. 50( b) . A m ot i on f orJN O V chal l enges the l egal s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . Mc Far land v. Ente r gy Mis s . , I

nc . , 91 9 S o. 2d 89 4, 90 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ); Mc Cla in v. S ta te , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 8 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 3 ) . " [ T ] h i s Co u r tp r o p e r l y r e v i e ws the rul i ng on the l astoccasi on the ch al l eng e w as m ade in the tr i al cou rt . " Mc Cla in , 625 So. 2 d at 77 8 . H ere , this oc cu rred w h en the tri a l c o u rtd en ied F it ch ’s m o ti o n for JN O V . In

### 48

W h ite v. Stew m an , 932 So. 2d 27, 32- 33 ( M i s s . 2006) , thi s C our tr ece nt l y pr ovi ded an e xc e l l e nta na l ys i s of

w ha toc c ur s w he n a mot i on f orJ N O V i s made pu r s ua ntt o M . R. C. P. 50( b) , s t at i ng: R ul e 50( b) al l ow s the courtt o r eserve the dec i s i on on thi s cr i t i cal q u esti o n o f l aw u n ti l aft er the c ase h as b ee n su b m itted to th e jury a n d the ju ry has r eac hed a ve r di ctorhas i nf or m ed the j udge of

i t s i nabi l i ty t o agree on a ver di ct . W r i ght& M i l l er , F eder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e: C i vi l 2d § 2521, p. 241. "I f the courtdeci des t hat the i ni t i al m ot i on f orj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw s houl d have be en gr ant ed, i tm ay s etasi de t he ver di ctof the j ury and ent er a j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw . . . . T hu s the rul e gives the tr i al cou rta l ast chan ce t o o rderthe judgm ent that the law requi res . " Id . , pp. 241- 42. W hen a pr oper po st -ver di ctm ot i on f ora JN O V has been made, the cou rthas t hree op t i on s: Fi r s t , of cour s e, i tm ay deny the mot i on and ent erj udgm enton the ver di ct . A l t ernat i vel y, i tm ay gr antthe mot i on and or der ju d g m e n t f

o r th e m o v in g p a rty . E ith e r o f th e se a c tio n s re su lts i n a f i nal appea l abl e j udgm ent . T hi r d, the courtm ay thi nk the m o tio n w e ll t a k e n b u t th e d e fe c t in th e p ro o f p o ss ib ly rem ediabl e and t hu s order a new tri al rather than j ud gm ent as a m a tter o f la w . A n o rd e r g ra n tin g a n e w trial is in ter lo c u to ry in natur e and ge ner al l y notappea l abl e. W r i ght& M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e: C i vi l 2d § 2540, p. 366- 67. (S ee also M iss. R . C iv. P. 50 , cm t. ). T he s t andar d of

r evi ew f orthe deni al of

a mot i on f

orJN O V i s w el l s ett l ed: A m ot i on f

ora JN O V t es t s the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence s u p p o rt in g th e v e rd ic t, n o t th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . T harp v. B u n ge C orp . , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 0 , 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Itask s the co u rt t o hol d, a s a mat t e rof l a w , tha tthe ve r di c tmay n ots t a nd. Go o dwin v. De r r

y b e r r y Co . , 5 53 S o. 2d 40, 42 ( M i s s . 1989) ( ci t i ng Stubb le

f ie ld v. Je s c o, I

nc . , 46 4 S o. 2d 47 , 54 (M i ss. 19 84 )) . W hen a m oti on for JN O V is m ade, the tri al cou rtm ust cons i deral l of

the evi dence - notj us tevi dence w hi ch s uppor t s the n o n -m o v an t' s cas e-in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o th e p a rty oppos ed t o the mot i on. I f the f act s and i nf

er ence s s o cons i der ed p o in t so o v e rw h e lm in g ly in fa v o r o f th e m o v a n t th a t re a so n a b le

### 49 j ur or s coul d nothave a rr i ved ata contr ary ver di ct , gr ant i ng the m o tio n is re q u ir e d . Janss en P harm aceuti ca, I nc. v. B ailey , 878 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). Mc Far land , 919 So. 2d a t899- 900 ( quot i ng W hite v. Y e l low Fr e i ght Sy s te m , I

nc . , 905 So. 2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). ¶100. Sandr a t es t i f

i ed that s he m et V al ent i ne i n 19 89 w hen s he w as m arr i ed t o s om eone el s e. T hey w er e m ar r i ed yea r s l at eri n 1993. Sandr a w entt o w or k f orFi t ch O i l C om pany so m e tim e in 1 9 9 7 . A c c o rd in g to S a n d ra ’s te stim o n y , sh e w a s th e in iti a to r o f th e re latio n sh ip
w i th F i t ch. S he t es t i f

i ed thats he w as the one w ho pur s ued Fi t ch and f l i rt ed w i th hi m . She t est i fi ed thats he w as attr act ed t o Fi t ch and f el l i n l ove w i th hi m . E ventual l y, Sandr a and F itch b e g a n a re latio n sh ip so m e tim e in 1 9 9 8 th a t ev e n tu a lly b e c a m e se x u a l. ¶1 01 . Sandr a t es t i f

i ed t hatherm ar r i age t o V al ent i ne w as al r eady ove rbef or e t he r el at i ons hi p began. A ccor di ng t o S and r a’ s t es t i m ony, herm arr i age t o V al ent i ne w as over in h e r m in d in 1 9 9 6 , b e fo re sh e e v e r m e t F itch in 1 9 9 7 . S h e tes tified th a t V a len tin e sp e n t h is mo n e y a n d t i me g a mb l i n g a n d h a n g i n g o u twi th h i s b u d d i e s r a th e rth a n s p e n d i n g a n y t i me w i th h e r . She s t a t e d tha tV a l e nt i ne r ou t i ne l y c a me ho me drun k, a nd the y h a d no c o m m u n ica tio n w ith e a c h o th e r. S a n d ra tes tified th a t af ter sh e sto p p e d h a n g in g o u t w ith V alen ti n e a t his bu d d y ’s ho u se so m eti m e in 1 9 9 5 o r 19 9 6 , s h e ra re ly sa w h im . S an d ra tes tified th a t sh e w o u ld g o to V a len tin e ’s b u d d y ’s h o u se o r th e c a sin o s a n d try to g e t h im to c o m e h o m e . S a n d ra tes tified th a t a t tim e s, V a len tin e w o u ld n o t c o m e h o m e fo r d a y s, w ith the longe stperi od being t hree day s. ¶102. She st at ed she “w oul d scr eam, cr y, hol l er , ” but“nothi ng hel ped. ” I n J anuary of 1996, s he w entt o the cas i no a nd t ol d hi m thati f he di d notl eave the ca s i no then the mar r i age w as

### 50

over . T hey t al ked out s i de and e nded up i n a f i ght . She s t at ed thatV al ent i ne w al ked back i ns i de the cas i no i ns t ead of comi ng hom e w i th her . Sandr a t es t i f i ed thatw as the mom entt hat the mar r i age w as overi n herm i nd. A ccor di ng t o Sandr a, s he w as mar r i ed t o “s om eone that d id n ’t s h o w . . . a ff

e c tio n .” ¶10 3. S and ra t est i fi ed thatshe had com e t o res ent hav i ng t o hav e sex w i th V al enti ne becau se h e h a d “ tu rn e d . . . [h e r] a g a in s t h im .” S a n d ra s ta te d t h a t V a le n ti n e “ n e v e r s p o k e to h e r.” She t es t i f i ed t hat“[ h] e neverhad anythi ng t o s ay, and then he w oul d expec tm e t o j us tw ant t o t ouch . . . he j us tw ant ed t o have s ex w i th m e. ” W hen V al ent i ne w ant ed t o have s ex, s he c o n s id e re d th e a c t o f s e x “ ju s t s o m e th in g to g e t h im . . . to g e t t h e jo b d o n e a n d g e t th ro u g h .” Sandr a al l eged thatV al ent i ne had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de f

i nanci al s uppor tf

orthei rs on, J . V . , s i nce th e d i v o r c e a n d th a tF i t c h wa s h a v i n g t o s u p p o r th i m. ¶104. Fi t ch t es t i f

i ed thatatthe t i m e the r el at i ons hi p be gan he knew Sandr a w as m arr i ed, but Sandr a t ol d hi m thats he “di d notha ve a m arr i age any m or e. ” H ow ever , by the t i m e thatt he relati o n sh ip b e c a m e se x u al, F it ch test if ied th at he d id co n ce rn h im self ab o u t Sa n d ra’s m arr i age. Fl emi ng t es t i f i ed thatSandr a had c onf i ded i n herr egar di ng the pr obl ems i n her m arr i age t o V al ent i ne. ¶ 1 0 5 . S a n d ra tes tified th a t F itch d id n o th in g to th re a ten h e r in to th e re latio n sh ip o r to re m a in i n a r el at i ons hi p. Fur ther , Fi t ch neverthr eat ened t o t ake K . V . aw ay f r om heri f

s he di d not c o n tin u e w o rk in g fo r h im o r th e re latio n sh ip . W h e n V a len tin e in sis te d th a t S a n d ra q u it
w o rkin g for F it ch , sh e re fuse d an d test if ied th at sh e h ad n o inten ti o n o f ev er q u itti n g . S an d ra t es t i f i ed thatthe ca s h s he had c ame f r om hers al ary and com m i s s i on. Fi t ch di d notgi ve her m o n e y in e x c h a n g e fo r s e x u a l re latio n s o r to e n tice h e r in to th e re latio n sh ip o r to re m a in in

### San dra an d F itch w ere married at th e time of trial. 27 

### 51 the r el at i ons hi p. Fi t ch t es t i f i ed t hathe nevergave Sandr a any e xtr avaga ntgi f t s and di d not re c a ll g iv in g h e r an y m o n e y ex c e p t fo r h e r sa lar y an d co m m iss io n s p a id in c a sh li k e a ll h is empl oyees . Fl emi ng t es t i f i ed thatFi t ch pai d al l hi s empl oyees i n cas h. ¶1 0 6 . V a len tin e c o n fro n ted S an d ra reg ard ing w h ethe r she w as h av ing an affair. S an d ra d en ied th e a cc u sati o n . L ater, V alen ti n e c o n fron ted F it ch an d S an d ra, inq u ir ing i f th ey w ere havi ng an af

f ai r . B oth deni ed the ac cus at i on. V al ent i ne w as aw ar e thatK . V . , born i n 1999, w as nothi s chi l d. T he pat erni ty t es ts how ed t hatV al ent i ne had no c hance of bei ng the fathe r. ¶ 1 0 7 . V a len tin e p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e th a t S a n d ra w a s n o t th e in iti a to r o f th e re latio n sh ip
w ith F itch . V a len tin e m a d e u n su p p o rte d a c c u sa tio n s th a t F itch w a s g iv in g S a n d ra m o n e y to have a r el at i ons hi p w i th hi m and thathe ha d thr eat ened t o us e hi s money t o t ake K . V . aw ay fr om S and ra i f s he en ded the rel at i on shi p. S and ra and F i t ch b oth denied t he all egati on s. V al ent i ne al l eged thatSandr a s oughtt o “ tr ade up” by be comi ng i nvol ved w i th Fi t ch, and he test if ied a s t o th e ch an g e in S an d ra’s l if esty le si n ce she m arried F it ch . Y ea rs after S an d ra 27
a n d Va l e n t i n e we r e d i v o r c e d , S a n d r a a n d F i t c h we r e ma rr i e d a n d we r e ma rr i e d a tth e t i me o f tria l. ¶1 08 . T hi s C our tha s e s t a bl i s he d the r e qu i r e d e l e ment s of an ac t i on f

oral i enat i on of af f ect i ons : ( 1) w r ongf

ul conductof

t he def endant , ( 2) l os s of

af f ect i on orcons or t i um , and ( 3) a c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e c o n d u c t a n d th e lo s s . Bland , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d at 41 7 . H o w ev er, i n or dert o m ai nt ai n an ac t i on f oral i enat i on of

af f ect i ons , “i tm us tbe es t abl i s hed thatt he

### 52

h u s b a n d [ wi f

e , S a n d r a , ] wa s i n d u c e d t o a b a n d o n th e wi f e [ h u s b a n d , Va l e n t i n e , ] b y s o me act i ve i nt er f

er ence on the partof

the def endant[ Fi t ch] . ” Stanton , 139 So. at460. I n K irk , thi s C our tagai n s t at ed thatthe def endantmust“ di r ect l y a nd i nt ent i onal l y [ i nt er f er e] w i th” pl ai nt i f f’ s m arr i age, ther eby i nduci ng the al i enat i on of af f ect i ons of

the pl ai nt i f

f’ s s pous e. K irk , 607 So. 2d at1223. ¶1 0 9 . H ere , ac co rdin g the rec o rd, the V alen ti n es’ m arriage h ad d eteriorated b efo re S an d ra began a r el at i ons hi p w i th Fi t ch. N othi ng con t radi ct ed Sandr a’ s as s ert i on thats he w as t he i ni t i at orof

the r el at i ons hi p w i t h F i t ch. She t es t i f i ed thats he had no a f f ect i on l ef

tf or V al ent i ne f

orFi t ch t o have a l i enat ed. T her e i s a l ack of evi dence thatFi t ch di r ect l y and in ten tio n a lly in ter fe re d th e V a len tin e s’ m a rria g e b y in d u c in g S a n d ra ’s a ffe c tio n s. W h ile F itch ’s a n d S a n d ra ’s c o n d u c t i s c lea rly n o t ad m ira b le, th e ev id e n c e fails to su p p o rt a c laim of al i enati on of af

fect i on s. ¶1 1 0 . F u rth e r, V a len tin e fa iled to p rese n t suffi cien t evid en ce o f an y ec o n o m ic l o ss to s uppor tt he aw ar d of damages he re cei ved. V al ent i ne’ s f ai l ur e t o pr es entany evi dence that h e su ffe re d fin a n c ially fro m th e a lleg e d a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s r e su lts in o u r in a b ili ty to det erm i ne thathe i s ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d of damages . T he onl y argum entadvanc ed by Va l e n t i n e wa s th a th e l o s th i s h o u s e a n d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f h i s s o n , J . V. ¶111. H ow ever , the r e c or d p r ov i de s tha tV a l e nt i ne vol unt ar i l y s urr ender ed pos s es s i on of the m arit al ho m e to S an d ra in the p rop erty sett lem en t ag ree m en t si g n ed b y the p arti es. S an d ra a g re e d to p a y V a len tin e $ 3 2 ,5 0 0 fo r h is in ter e st in the h o u se w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f th e a g re e m e n t. V al ent i ne al s o w as gr ant ed a di vor ce on the gr ounds of adul t ery as partof

the t erm s of

t he p ro p e rty se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t.

### 53

¶ 1 1 2 . In fa c t, th e p a rties ’ p ro p e rty a g re e m e n t sp e c ifi c a lly p ro v id e d tha t S a n d ra w o u ld a d m it thatV al ent i ne w as ent i t l ed t o a di vor ce on the gr ound of adul t ery as a condi t i on of the pr operty s ett l ement . T her ef or e, fr om t he l anguage of the s ett l ementagr eement , i ti s appar ent thatV al ent i ne excha nged the pos s es s i on and us e of the mar i t al hom e and r ece i ved $32, 500 f orhi s i nt er es ti n t he hous e i n r eturn f orSandr a’ s admi s s i on of adul t ery. ¶113. A ccor di ng t o Sandr a’ s t es t i m ony, V al ent i ne never s ought cus t ody of J . V . L i kew i s e, i n the chi l d cus t ody agr eements i gned by the part i es , V al ent i ne al l ow ed Sandr a t o have the “par a mountpe r mane ntph ys i c a l c us t od y o f the mi no rc hi l d, ” J . V . , s ub j e c tt o h i s vi s i t a t i on rig h ts. S a n d ra tes tified th a t V a len tin e w a s n o t p a y in g h is c h ild su p p o rt fo r J.V . as a g re e d in th e d i v o r c e s e t t l e me n t . Va l e n t i n e a d mi t t e d t h a th e e x c h a n g e d th e h o u s e a n d c u s t o d y o f J . V. forS and ra’ s adm i ssi on of adult ery. T he record prov i des: Q : N ow , i n the – w hatyou ended up gi vi ng up, bas i cal l y, i s the hous e and the chi l d, butw hatyou gotw as an admi s s i on of adul t ery, di dn’ tyou? A : Y es, si r. Q : A n d th a t w a s v e ry im p o rta n t to y o u , w a sn ’t it? A : A t th e ti m e, ye s, sir . Q : B ec au se y o u n ee d ed that ad m issi o n o f ad u lt ery to ge t h ere t o d ay , d idn ’t you? A : Y es , s i r , I bel i eve I di d. ¶114. A s s how n above, V al ent i ne t es t i f i ed t hathe exchange d poss es s i on of the hous e and p h y sic a l cu sto d y o f J.V . fo r th e p u rp o se s o f d e v e lo p in g a n a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s la w su it. H ow ever , V al ent i ne l at erexpl ai ned thathi s deci si on t o agr ee t o Sandr a r ece i vi ng phys i cal c u s t o d y o f

J . V. wa s a l s o i n f

l u e n c e d b y h i s d e s i r e t o n o ts e p a r a t e J . V. f r o m h i s s i s t e r , K. V. ¶115. M or eover , V al ent i ne i ntr oduced no m edi cal bi l l s i n s uppor tof a ny a l l eged da m ages he s uf f er ed. V al ent i ne t es t i f

i ed thathe had gone t o the hos pi t al once f oranxi ety and w as

### 54

pr es cr i bed the medi cat i on, P axil , by D r . R os s C ol l i ns . H e s t at ed thathe t ook the Paxi l f or onl y “a c oupl e of

m onths atthe very m os t . ” H ow ever , no m edi cal re cor ds w er e i ntr oduced an d n o m e d ica l cha rge s w ere intr o d u ce d b y V alen ti n e. V alen ti n e testi fi ed that itw as h ard to fo cu s o n h is bu sine ss d u ri n g the ti m e foll o w ing the d ivo rce . H o w ev er, he d id n o t t esti fy thathe l os tany bus i nes s dur i ng thatt i m e. L i kew i s e, V al ent i ne di d nott es t i f y thathe l os tany i nco m e as a r esul tof the all eged al i enati on of af fect i on s. ¶116. T her ef

or e, I f i nd t hatt he tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng Fi t ch’ s m ot i on f orJN O V . B as ed on t he r ecor d, t he j ury’ s ver di ctw as i ncorr ectand notbase d upon l egal l y s uf f i ci entevi dence to p ro v e a c laim o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s. I w o u ld re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C irc u it C o u rt o f M a rsh a ll C o u n ty in th e a m o u n t o f $ 6 4 2 ,0 0 0 in a c tu a l d a m a g e s a n d $ 1 1 2 ,5 0 0 in puni t i ve damages , f

ora t ot al of

$754, 500, i n f

avorof V al ent i ne and r enderj udgm enti n f avor o f F itch . A s m y d e c isio n to re v e rse a n d re n d e r ju d g m e n t re g a rd in g th e iss u e o f JN O V , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r ra ise d b y F itch is d isp o sitiv e o f th e o th e r iss u e s h e ra ise d o n a p p e a l.