Feltmeier v. Feltmeier
207 Ill. 2d 263, 798 N.E.2d 75, 278 Ill. Dec. 228 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a long-term pattern of domestic abuse constitutes a continuing tort, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the date of the last injurious act or when the tortious conduct ceases.
Facts:
- Lynn Feltmeier and Robert Feltmeier were married on October 11, 1986.
- Shortly after the marriage, Robert began a continuous course of physical and mental abuse against Lynn.
- Robert's conduct included repeated instances of striking, kicking, shoving, hair pulling, twisting her limbs, and preventing her from leaving their home.
- Robert also engaged in verbal abuse, including yelling insults, demeaning epithets, threats, and constant criticism intended to humiliate and degrade Lynn.
- Robert attempted to isolate Lynn from her family and friends.
- The parties divorced on December 16, 1997.
- Robert's abusive conduct, which included stalking, continued after the divorce and occurred as late as August 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynn Feltmeier (plaintiff) sued Robert Feltmeier (defendant) in the circuit court for intentional infliction of emotional distress on August 25, 1999.
- Robert filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim and was barred by the statute of limitations, which the circuit court denied.
- Robert filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing a marital settlement agreement released the claim, which the circuit court also denied.
- The circuit court certified three questions of law for a permissive interlocutory appeal.
- Robert (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the intermediate appellate court.
- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the motions to dismiss, holding that Lynn (appellee) could maintain her action.
- Robert (appellant) petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court (highest court) for leave to appeal, which was granted.
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 the continuing tort doctrine apply to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a long-term pattern of domestic abuse, thereby tolling the statute of limitations until the last tortious act occurs?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rarick
Yes. The continuing tort doctrine applies to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a pattern of domestic abuse. The court reasoned that the tort of IIED often involves a cumulative pattern of conduct where no single act may be sufficient to be actionable on its own. It would be logically inconsistent to recognize that the tort arises from a cumulative pattern but require the statute of limitations to run from the first act. The court held that the cumulative nature of the abuse makes it a single, continuous tort, and therefore the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the final tortious act has occurred. This approach prevents wrongdoers from being shielded by the statute of limitations for individual acts within a prolonged campaign of abuse and aligns with public policy against domestic violence. The court rejected the argument that a heightened standard for 'outrageousness' should apply in the marital context, finding no valid policy reason to restrict such actions.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes in Illinois that long-term domestic abuse can be treated as a single, continuing tort for the purposes of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. This prevents an abuser from using the statute of limitations to escape liability for older acts that are part of a continuous pattern of misconduct. The ruling significantly strengthens the legal recourse available to victims of domestic violence by acknowledging the cumulative nature of the harm they suffer. It sets a precedent that will make it more difficult for defendants in similar cases to obtain early dismissal on timeliness grounds, thereby allowing more victims to have their claims fully heard on the merits.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Feltmeier v. Feltmeier (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"