Opinion ID: 1831005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: whether the trial court erred in excluding all evidence relating to bland's adulterous affair with judy.

Text: ¶ 28. The trial court excluded all evidence relating to an adulterous affair between Bland and Judy. The trial court ruled that: In making that ruling, there was nothing in the complaint that was alleged about adultery in the complaint that you filed in this action. There was nothing in the divorce about the complaintthe divorce was on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Looking at the complaint that you filed and the divorce on the basis of that, this Court ruled that adultery was not an issue and was not going to let that come in. ¶ 29. Buddy contends that the trial court erred and that he was not required to allege adultery in his complaint for punitive damages. He argues that he provided notice of the damages sought and that adultery was not a separate cause of action required to be pled in the complaint. ¶ 30. Bland argues that he had no notice that evidence of adultery would be offered until twenty days after the discovery deadline. He argues that adultery was not pled in the complaint and was never mentioned in discovery. Judy and Bland both denied any sexual relationship prior to their marriage. Bland also argues that Buddy made no proffer as to any direct proof of adultery and, therefore, should be procedurally barred. ¶ 31. It is clear that the reason Buddy wanted to put on proof of adultery is to obtain a punitive damage instruction. This Court has held that in cases of adultery malice is presumed. Walter v. Wilson, 228 So.2d 597, 598 (Miss., 1969). Buddy cites to Walter, but in Walter the plaintiff was suing for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. Criminal conversation, when it was a viable claim, required proof of a sexual relationship between the alienated spouse and the defendant. In the case sub judice, Buddy was suing only for alienation of affections. Bland was not on notice that he would have to defend against accusations of adultery until after the discovery deadline. Buddy did not proffer any direct evidence, and this Court procedurally bars this claim.