Opinion ID: 1988339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Origin of actions.

Text: These torts came to us from the common law. Their viability has not been challenged previously in this jurisdiction. Of course it is our duty to monitor and interpret the common law, and to abandon antiquated doctrines and concepts. Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791, 796 (Iowa 1972); Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n., 241 Iowa 1269, 1274, 45 N.W.2d 151, 154 (1950). The genius of the common law is its flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation. Handeland v. Brown, 216 N.W.2d 574, 577 (Iowa 1974). In determining whether these actions should be retained we review their elements and distinguishing features: The essential elements of a cause of action for alienation of affection are wrongful conduct of defendant, loss of affection or consortium and causal connection between such conduct and loss. An actual intent to alienate is not necessary if defendant's conduct is inherently wrong and tends to and does have the effect complained of. Mere loss of the spouse's affection does not render defendant liable unless his misconduct was a substantial factor in causing such loss. The right protected is freedom from wrongful interference by another causing the loss of the love, companionship and affection of the spouse. A cause of action for alienation of affection does not necessarily, though it may, involve a loss of affection through adulterous relations. Although not essential to recovery, adultery between defendant and plaintiff's spouse may be shown in aggravation of damages. On the other hand, the gist of the action of criminal conversation is adultery between defendant and plaintiff's spouse. The right protected is the exclusive right of one spouse to sexual intercourse with the other.  Giltner v. Stark, 219 N.W.2d 700, 704-705 (Iowa 1974) While both criminal conversation and alienation of affections belong to the same class, arise from the marriage relationship, and seek damages for loss of consortium, they are separate and distinct. They afford separate theories for one recovery. Id., at 704. The only general defenses to an action for alienation of affections are plaintiff's consent, defendant's lack of knowledge of the existence of the marriage, and the statute of limitations. Frank v. Berry, 128 Iowa 223, 103 N.W. 358 (1905). A defense of privilege exists in certain circumstances. Koehler v. Koehler, 248 Iowa 144, 79 N.W.2d 791 (1956). The only defenses to an action for criminal conversation are plaintiff's consent and the statute of limitations. See Stumm v. Hummel, 39 Iowa 478 (1874). Because both actions are based on rights acquired by marriage, they are lost when the marriage is dissolved unless preserved in the decree. Van Ellen v. Meyer, 207 N.W.2d 552 (Iowa 1973); see § 598.20, The Code.