Hutelmyer v. Cox
1999 N.C. App. LEXIS 510, 514 S.E.2d 554, 133 N.C. App. 364 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover punitive damages for alienation of affections, a plaintiff must show willful, aggravated, or malicious conduct beyond that which is necessary to prove the underlying tort. For criminal conversation, the sexual misconduct necessary to establish the tort is, by itself, sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages.
Facts:
- Dorothy Hutelmyer (plaintiff) and Joseph Hutelmyer were in a loving marriage from 1978 and had three children.
- In 1986, Margie Cox (defendant) began working as Mr. Hutelmyer's secretary.
- In 1992, after separating from her own husband, Cox began an openly flirtatious relationship with Mr. Hutelmyer at their workplace.
- From 1992 onward, Cox and Mr. Hutelmyer spent increasing amounts of time together, including working late, dining alone, and taking business trips together.
- A neighbor testified that beginning in 1993, Mr. Hutelmyer's car was frequently parked at Cox's home overnight.
- During this period, Mr. Hutelmyer became distant from his wife, their sexual relationship deteriorated and ceased in 1994, and he told her she could no longer accompany him on business trips.
- Cox and Mr. Hutelmyer began a sexual relationship in 1994.
- On January 5, 1996, Mr. Hutelmyer left the marital home to live with Cox, whom he later married after divorcing the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy Hutelmyer (plaintiff) filed suit in a North Carolina trial court against Margie Cox (defendant) for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), to set aside punitive damages, and for a new trial.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 defendant's long-term, public adulterous affair constitute a sufficient aggravating circumstance to support an award of punitive damages for alienation of affections, even without evidence that the defendant directly taunted or flaunted the relationship in the presence of the innocent spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Timmons-Goodson, J.
Yes, a defendant's long-term, public adulterous affair constitutes a sufficient aggravating circumstance for punitive damages. To justify punitive damages for alienation of affections, the plaintiff must show 'circumstances of aggravation' beyond the malice implied by law for the underlying tort. The evidence showed that the defendant's conduct was willful and aggravated, as she publicly displayed the intimate nature of her relationship with the plaintiff's husband at their workplace in front of co-workers, welcomed him into her home overnight for years with knowledge of his family, traveled with him on business, and even called the plaintiff's home on Thanksgiving. This conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, rises to the level of aggravation sufficient to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. For the criminal conversation claim, the sexual misconduct itself is sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Hunter, J.
No, a defendant's long-term, public adulterous affair does not constitute a sufficient aggravating circumstance for punitive damages without conduct directed at the innocent spouse. While the defendant's conduct was sufficient to establish the tort of alienation of affections, punitive damages require 'additional circumstances of aggravation directed to' the plaintiff. Precedent upholding punitive damages involves defendants who flaunted the relationship in the plaintiff's face, such as by cohabitating in the marital home or laughing at the plaintiff upon discovery. Here, the uncontradicted evidence showed the plaintiff was unaware of the affair until her husband left, and there was no evidence the defendant flaunted the relationship in the plaintiff's face. Therefore, the punitive damages award for alienation of affections should be set aside.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the scope of conduct that can be considered 'aggravating circumstances' sufficient for punitive damages in alienation of affections claims. The majority moves away from a strict requirement that the defendant's aggravating conduct must be directed 'at' the innocent spouse. Instead, it allows for punitive damages based on a pattern of public, open, and long-term adulterous behavior, even if the wronged spouse was not personally aware of it at the time. This lowers the bar for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages in such cases, contrasting with the dissent's stricter view that requires a direct flaunting of the affair in the plaintiff's face.
Unlock the full brief for Hutelmyer v. Cox