Opinion ID: 1725117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: and (4) Willful Causation.

Text: The evidence, considered as a whole, supports a finding that defendant accomplished the alienation of Barbara Gorder's affections from her husband willfully and intentionally. The Gorders had become acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Sims in about 1962. They became friends, exchanging hospitality and enjoying many social events together. The relationship between the two couples was overtly harmonious and constructive until 1968, when Gorder experienced a physical disability that required hospitalization and subsequent confinement in a body cast for some time after his release. In March of that year, Gorder and Sims engaged in a conversation in the Gorder home during the course of which Gorder challenged Sims to affirm or deny reports that Sims and Barbara Gorder had been seeing each other, having dinner together, lunch together and meeting together in the country in a car on the highway and getting from one car to the other   . According to Gorder, Mr. Sims admitted that they had. And further, he said that because I had been laid up so long and wasn't very good company    that Barbara needed some companionship so they met. Gorder testified that he accepted the assurances of his wife and of the defendant and persuaded himself that the association was not of serious or permanent significance. The Gorders moved into a new home in 1969 and fixed it up to be, in plaintiff's words, one of the most beautiful showplaces of any home that I had ever seen. Mrs. Gorder made payments on the home during a period which was one of financial stress for her husband. This was, he testified, [m]oney that she had saved over the years when I had more money. But in May 1971 a conversation occurred, according to Gorder, which, the jury could have found, demonstrated that Sims was determined to displace plaintiff in the affections of Barbara Gorder. The place of this conversation was the new home at 5600 Woodcrest Drive in Edina. The time was about May 17, 1971. The testimony was as follows: I asked Mr. Sims if it were true what his wife had told me at St. Mary's Hospital    two days before    that Bob and Barbara had been together for some time and had been Q. What did he reply to that question? A. He said yes, I have been in love with Barbara Gorder for many, many years, and I'm going to win her, I'm going to get her, I want her. [6] Q. Was there any other conversation that took place at that time? A.    [A] short time later after a long period of silence I asked my wife if she was in love with him, and she waited a long time, and then said, `Yes, I love Bob Sims, but I also love you, Les Gorder. ' [7] (Italics supplied.) It is true that Sims denied that this conversation had taken place, but the jury had the right to accept this testimony of plaintiff, particularly in view of other corroborative circumstances disclosed by the record. Our conclusion is that the evidence supports the jury's finding that defendant had deliberately alienated the affections of plaintiff's wife and that the proof of this alienation meets the requirements of Pedersen v. Jirsa, 267 Minn. 48, 125 N.W.2d 38 (1963). See, generally, 42 C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 689. The fact that plaintiff sued his wife for divorce and alleged longstanding mistreatment does not foreclose this result. Annotation, 96 A.L. R.2d 903, 909. It was proper to consider events taking place after the divorce action was instituted, because this conduct on the part of the defendant gave meaning to his behavior preceding the commencement of the divorce action. See, Paulson v. Scott, 260 Wis. 141, 50 N.W.2d 376 (1951). 2. It is asserted, but not strenuously argued, that the verdict in the amount of $20,000 is not sustained by the evidence and is excessive. Acknowledging the fact that the ascertainment of damage in cases such as this is most difficult, we believe the allowance to have been acceptable in amount. Considerations of sentiment aside, the fact that plaintiff's wife willingly contributed $10,000 toward the purchase of a family home approximately 2 years before the disruption of the marriage makes the jury's assessment of damages seem reasonable. [8] 3. Defendant argues that actions for alienation of affection are contrary to public policy and should be eliminated altogether. We are referred to Prosser, Torts (4 ed.), § 124, p. 887, where the author states:    There is good reason to believe that even genuine actions of this type are brought more frequently than not with purely mercenary or vindictive motives; that it is impossible to compensate for such damage with what has derisively been called `heart balm;' that people of any decent instincts do not bring an action which merely adds to the family disgrace; and that no preventive purpose is served, since such torts seldom are committed with deliberate plan. Added to this is perhaps an increasing notion of personal or even sexual freedom on the part of women, and the feeling, illustrated by the current attitude toward divorce, that a home so easily broken up is not worth maintaining. [9] Whatever the reasons which support this point of view, they have not been persuasive to the legislature of the State of Minnesota. [10] So far as any institution can, it represents the attitude of the public in matters of this kind. Until the legislature declares that individuals are free to intrude themselves upon the special relationship which exists between a husband and wife, we feel no compelling sense of urgency to do so. It may be true that rules relating to the behavior of married persons have become relaxed in current times, but, whatever the extent of that relaxation, the jury (presumably representative of community mores in Hennepin County), having been fully instructed by the trial court as to the essential elements of the cause of action, concluded that permissiveness had been abused in this case by defendant, to plaintiff's damage. So long as the evidence supports that conclusion reasonably, we believe that the verdict of the jury should be upheld. 4. On this appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant argues that the evidence in support of the verdict is so weak that this court should at least grant a new trial. Although the trial court denied a motion for dismissal at the close of plaintiff's case and denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all testimony, it did, in denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, order a retrial. This court, in Gorder v. Sims, 297 Minn. 346, 347, 211 N.W.2d 369, 370 (1973), voided the order directing a retrial, upon the ground that the trial court had no power to grant a new trial under the circumstances herein since defendant had not requested that relief and the time in which the court could grant a new trial on its own initiative had expired. The authority of this court to grant a new trial is somewhat broader than that of the district court, and we could direct a new trial on all or part of the issues in this case if we were satisfied that the interests of justice so required. [11] We do not do so because we feel that any jury to which this case is submitted will have precisely the same problems as have been dealt with by the jury which has already decided it. If plaintiff's testimony is to be believed, that testimony, together with the corroborating evidence given in support of it, is sufficient to establish that defendant deliberately alienated the affections of plaintiff's wife, to his damage. On the other hand, if the testimony of defendant and the seven witnesses, including Mrs. Gorder, called in his behalf is to be accepted, the jury would have concluded that any affection which Barbara Gorder ever had for her husband was lost, if at all, because of plaintiff's own misbehavior. We do not see how a second jury would be in any better position to assess this conflicting evidence than was the one which has already decided it. We could grant a new trial on the issue of damages only, but no standard of measurement is available which could demonstrate that a verdict in the amount of $10,000 or in the amount of $30,000 would be more reasonable than the one which has already been returned. There was no evidence of significance tendered by defendant in the first action which was rejected. No claim is made that evidence tendered by plaintiff was improperly received. No claim is made that there is newly discovered evidence available to either party which would make it more likely that a second jury's verdict would be an improvement on the one previously rendered. In this situation, we do not feel that a reenactment of the unhappy situation underlying this lawsuit would serve a useful purpose. Affirmed.