Bonhomme v. St. James
349 Ill. Dec. 29, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 945 N.E.2d 1181 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of fraudulent misrepresentation can be extended beyond its traditional commercial context to a non-commercial, personal online relationship, provided the plaintiff pleads all requisite elements, including pecuniary harm resulting from justifiable reliance on the defendant's false statements.
Facts:
- In April 2005, Paula Bonhomme of California began communicating with Janna St. James of Illinois in an online chatroom.
- St. James created a male persona, 'Jesse James,' and in July 2005, initiated an online romantic relationship with Bonhomme.
- St. James also communicated with Bonhomme as herself, claiming to know 'Jesse,' and created approximately 20 other fictional online characters who interacted with Bonhomme to corroborate the existence of 'Jesse' and his life.
- Over the course of the relationship, Bonhomme sent gifts worth over $10,000 to 'Jesse' and the other fictional characters invented by St. James.
- Bonhomme purchased airline tickets to meet 'Jesse' in September 2005, but he cancelled; St. James falsely claimed he had attempted suicide.
- After Bonhomme and 'Jesse' planned to move in together in 2006, St. James, through another fictional persona, informed Bonhomme that 'Jesse' had died of liver cancer, causing Bonhomme severe emotional distress.
- In February 2007, St. James visited Bonhomme in California, where Bonhomme's friends uncovered the scheme and confronted St. James, who admitted on videotape to the deception.
Procedural Posture:
- Paula Bonhomme filed her initial complaint against Janna St. James in an Illinois trial court.
- Bonhomme filed a second amended complaint containing seven counts, including fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The trial court granted St. James's motion to dismiss, dismissing all counts with prejudice except for fraudulent misrepresentation, which was dismissed without prejudice.
- The trial court denied Bonhomme's motion to reconsider the dismissals.
- Bonhomme then filed a third amended complaint, alleging only a single count of fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The trial court granted St. James's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice.
- Bonhomme, the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of her third amended complaint to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint state a valid cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation when it alleges that a defendant orchestrated an elaborate, long-term online deception, creating multiple fictitious personas to induce the plaintiff into a personal relationship that resulted in significant economic and emotional damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McLaren
Yes, a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation can extend to these circumstances. While typically an economic tort, it may be applied to non-commercial situations, especially where the plaintiff has parted with money or property of value in reliance on the defendant's misrepresentations. Bonhomme sufficiently pleaded all five elements of fraudulent misrepresentation: (1) St. James made false statements of material fact by presenting fictional characters as real; (2) St. James knew they were false; (3) the extensive, multi-year deception allows for a reasonable inference of intent to induce action; (4) whether Bonhomme's reliance was justifiable is a question of fact, and given the elaborate, multi-faceted nature of the deception, it cannot be deemed unjustified as a matter of law; and (5) Bonhomme pleaded clear pecuniary damages, including over $10,000 in gifts. The defendant's argument that there is no misrepresentation if the defendant knows it is fiction wrongly shifts the focus from the victim's reliance to the perpetrator's knowledge.
Dissenting - Justice Schostok
No, the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation should not be expanded to the facts of this case, and the plaintiff failed to plead justifiable reliance. Past expansions of this tort involved unique circumstances like adoption or public health concerns, where a special duty or state policy interest was at stake; such interests are absent in this purely personal online relationship. Furthermore, the plaintiff's reliance was not justifiable. Given the 'reality of the Internet age,' where online identities are often not what they seem, a person is not justified in spending over $10,000 on gifts for, or planning to move in with, individuals they have never met in person.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the application of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation into the realm of modern online relationships, recognizing that 'catfishing' can constitute a legally cognizable claim for fraud when it leads to financial loss. It establishes that the justification for a victim's reliance is a factual question that depends on the complexity and scope of the deception, potentially lowering the bar for victims of elaborate online hoaxes to survive a motion to dismiss. The case sets a notable precedent for holding individuals liable for economic damages caused by deception within purely personal, non-commercial contexts facilitated by the internet.
