Court Opinion

ID: 9705850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:23:40.327683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:04.711927
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I would abolish the tort of alienation of affections as well as the tort of criminal conversation. These “heart-balm” torts are based on a false view of marriage and human nature. They denigrate marriage and debase the common law.
I. We are proud of the ability of the common law to grow and adapt to changing conditions. However, the development of the common law is not limited to creating new rights of action and expanding remedies. It should include eliminating rights and remedies which have proved to be unjust or anachronistic.
If we devote our attention only to adding to the disputes which can be litigated, we fail in our responsibility to maintain the viability of the common law and we deserve the criticism which results. In this age when a solution is sought at law for almost every human problem, we must be vigilant to prevent the court system from being used to inflict injury rather than to obtain redress for legitimate wrongs. Asserted rights and remedies which are based on erroneous assumptions fall in this class and ought to be rejected.
Certainly we should not, as the majority does, endorse decisions of other courts which have recognized the disfavor of heart-balm litigation but are content to leave the issue of eliminating this judge-made doctrine to the legislature. See Gorder v. Sims, 306 Minn. 275, 237 N.W.2d 67 (1975). In Kersten Co., Inc. v. Department of Social Services, 207 N.W.2d 117 (Iowa 1973), we said we could open the courtroom doors without legislative help. We should have equal confidence in our power to close them.
II. As recognized in the majority opinion many jurisdictions have abolished one or both of the major heart-balm torts. Moreover, despite the majority’s contrary characterization, a substantial number of these jurisdictions have taken this action within the last ten years.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming have completely eliminated both actions.1 Louisiana, by court decision, has refused to recognize and Arizona, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Oklahoma, by legislation, have completely abolished the action of alienation of affections.2 In *137addition, Michigan, Washington and Pennsylvania have abrogated the alienation of affections action for unrelated parties.3 Michigan and Pennsylvania have terminated the action for criminal conversation.4 While Illinois has not abolished either action, it has imposed severe limitations on the damages which may be recovered.5 Finally, Alabama permits only equitable relief for either alienation of affections or criminal conversation.6
The trend is to abolish these actions, and good reasons exist for doing so. The majority finds these reasons persuasive as to the tort of criminal conversation but not as to alienation of affections. I do not believe we can justify retaining either tort.
III. It is strange that one should be accused of believing the marital relationship is not worth preserving because of a belief the existence of the alienation tort does not serve that end. The accusation begs the question.
It is also strange that the alienation of affections tort is held to be an essential means to preserve marriage without any supporting data or analysis to show it does in fact further that objective. Moreover, it is a considerable leap from quoting legal writers who endorse “some form of action” to preserve the family to a holding that the alienation tort will accomplish that purpose.
Although the majority opinion attacks the arguments for abolishing the alienation of affections action which are advanced in H. Clark, Law of Domestic Relations, § 10.2 at 267 (1968), I do not think it responds to Clark’s most telling statements:
* * * Still another is the peculiar light which the whole proceeding throws on the nature of marriage, leaving one with the conviction that the successful plaintiff has engaged in something which looks very much like a sale of his wife’s affections. Most significantly of all, the action for alienation is based on psychological assumptions that are contrary to fact.
I agree with Professor Clark because I do not believe one spouse has a proprietary interest in the love of the other, and I do not believe an action for alienation of affections is a rational means of preserving a marriage.
When heart-balm torts originated in the English common law they were available only to a husband. They had their basis in property concepts. The husband was said to be superior to his wife and thus to own her affections, companionship and services. When these torts were perpetuated in Iowa, instead of rejecting the fiction that one spouse owns the love which it is the other spouse’s decision to give or deny, this court simply recognized a reciprocal fiction in the case of the wife. See Price v. Price, 91 Iowa 693, 698, 60 N.W. 202, 203 (1894) (“As it is a valuable property right when due the husband, it must be so regarded when due the wife.”). While I agree the broader concept of a right of consortium has validity in the personal injury damages context, I do not believe spousal love is property which is subject to theft or alienation. It is simply a contradiction in terms to say it is. This should be sufficient reason in itself to abolish the alienation tort, but it is not the only reason.
Many authoritative studies have been made of the nature of marriage and the cause, prevention, and cure of marital failure. I have searched among them in vain for any support for the majority’s assumption that the existence of the alienation tort is a deterrent to marital breakdown or a device for protecting the family unit. See *138R. Anshen, The Family: Its Function and Destiny, (Rev. Ed. 1959); J. Sirjamaki, The American Family in the Twentieth Century (1953); R. Cavan, The American Family (Fourth Ed. 1969); P. Landis, Making the Most of Marriage (Fourth Ed. 1970); P. Popenoe, Marriage is What You Make It (1969); C. Broderick, A Decade of Family Research and Action (National Council on Family Relations, 1971); W. Lederer and D. Jackson, The Mirages of Marriage (1968).
A common denominator runs through these studies. It is that a marriage is a union of individuals. They marry for motives which are frequently nonrational. They each bring into the relationship many complicated expectations and desires which are a product of an elaborate process of growth and social conditioning. Despite the marriage the parties retain their individuality. During its course a constant process of interaction occurs. Success of the marriage depends on the ability and willingness of each spouse to make the constant adjustments necessary because of the individuality of the other. Openness, equality, sharing, love, sacrifice, a capacity for growth, emotional maturity and a forgiving spirit are essential components of a stable and viable marriage.
The disintegration of a marriage is ordinarily as complex a process as is its integration. It seldom occurs overnight. It starts from within. It is not caused by only one factor or through some imperfection of only one of the spouses. Any third person who kicks at the cornerstone of a shaky marriage will not bring it down without active support from one or both of the parties. It is simplistic and unrealistic to suppose the edifice will be held together either so long as or because spouses have the right to obtain vengeance in the form of damage suits against the third person. Although a recovery of damages will punish the third person and sooth the ego while enriching the purse of the plaintiff, it is hardly calculated to be a constructive influence in maintaining or restoring a mature and stable marriage between two individuals with free will and separate identity.
An early reaction to marital failure is the tendency to place all the responsibility for it on someone else. This is a process of self-defense. The fault divorce system provided a mechanism for playing out this fantasy, and the alienation of affections and criminal conversation torts serve the same purpose.
Over the years the public became aware of the hypocrisy, bitterness and emotional stress involved in the fault divorce system, and in 1970 our legislature enacted the dissolution law which eliminated the necessity of proving fault as a basis for terminating a marriage. See In re Marriage of Williams, 199 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1972).
The disuse and disfavor of alienation of affections and criminal conversation torts, reflected by the infrequency with which such cases have reached this court in recent years, result from the same considerations. These torts are antithetical to the goal they purport to foster. They are not constructive, but destructive. They do not build, but destroy. They bring out the worst in human nature in the guise of vindicating marital rights. They denigrate human dignity by reducing marital values to monetary terms. They provide a forum for vindictiveness and posturing self-justification.
Moreover, because the very bringing of such cases is sufficient to damage reputations, the threat to file them constitutes a device for the unscrupulous to coerce an unjust payment as the price for avoiding litigation. It does not matter that a jury might ultimately deny the merits of the claim.
Heart-balm actions arise from the same motives and serve no nobler purpose than the stoning of the adulteress condemned in the New Testament or the affixing of the scarlet letter decried by Hawthorne, and they have no more to do with protecting marriage and the family than either of those events.
HARRIS, J., joins in this dissent.

. Cal.Civ.Code § 43.5 (West 1954); Colo.Rev. Stat.Ann. § 13-20-202 (1973); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572b to 52-572f (1977); Del.Code Ann. 10 § 3924 (1975); Fla.Stat.Ann. 771.01 (1976); Ind.Stat.Ann. 34-4-4-1 (Burns Supp.1977); N.J.Stat.Ann. §2A:23-1 (1952); N.Y.Civ.Rights Law 80 a (McKinney 1976); Or.Rev.Stat. 30.-840 and 30.850 (1977); Vt.Stat.Ann., tit. 15, § 1001 (Supp.1977); Va.Code § 8.01-220 (1977); Wis.Stat.Ann. 248.01 (Supp.1977-1978); and Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 1-728 (1959).

. Moulin v. Monteleone, 165 La. 169, 115 So. 447 (1927); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-341 (Supp. 1977-1978); Maine Rev.Stat.Ann., tit. 19 § 164 (Supp. 1977-1978); Md.Ann.Code, Courts and *137Judicial Proceedings § 5-301 (1975); Nev.Rev. Stat. 41.380 (1975); Okl.Stat.Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (Supp. 1977-1978).

.Mich.Comp.Laws 551.301 and 551.302 (1967); Wyman v. Wallace, 15 Wash.App. 395, 549 P.2d 71 (1976) (review pending in the Supreme Court of Washington); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 48, § 170 (Purdon’s 1965).

. Mich.Comp.Laws 551.301 (1967); Fadgen v. Lenkner, 469 Pa. 272, 365 A.2d 147 (1976).

. Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 68 §§ 34-44 (Smith-Hurd 1959).

. Ala.Code § 6-5-331 (1975); Henley v. Rockett, 243 Ala. 172, 8 So.2d 852 (1942).