Lexplug logoLexplug

Koestler v. Pollard

Wisconsin Supreme Court
1991 Wisc. LEXIS 477, 162 Wis. 2d 797, 471 N. W.2d 7 (1991)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the underlying facts constitute a claim for criminal conversation, which has been statutorily abolished, even if the plaintiff alleges additional facts such as the concealment of a child's paternity.


Facts:

  • Koestler was married to Vickie Lynn Koestler.
  • During the marriage, Pollard engaged in sexual intercourse with Vickie.
  • A child, C.K., was born in 1983 as a result of the intercourse between Pollard and Vickie.
  • Pollard knew he was the biological father of C.K.
  • Pollard intentionally concealed his paternity from Koestler.
  • Koestler developed a bond with the child, believing the child was his own.
  • On June 17, 1987, Pollard revealed to Koestler that he was the child's biological father.
  • Koestler claimed to suffer an extreme and disabling emotional response due to the concealment and revelation.

Procedural Posture:

  • Koestler filed a complaint against Pollard in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Pollard filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  • The Circuit Court granted Pollard's motion and dismissed the action.
  • Koestler appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Locked

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 alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress state a valid claim for relief when the core facts involve the defendant's adulterous intercourse with the plaintiff's wife and the subsequent concealment of the resulting child's paternity?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Louis J. Ceci

No, the Court held that because the facts alleged in the complaint are essentially those required to prove criminal conversation—a tort abolished by the legislature—the claim is barred. The Court reasoned that the legislature directed the statute abolishing 'heart balm' torts (like criminal conversation and alienation of affections) to be liberally construed. Although Koestler labeled his claim as 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' and added facts about the concealment of paternity, the core of the grievance arose from the marital misconduct (adultery). The Court found that allowing this claim would subvert the legislative intent to keep courts out of such personal disputes. Furthermore, public policy dictates that the law should not provide a remedy for every human wrong, especially where litigation could cause significant harm to innocent children involved in the family dispute.


Dissent - Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson

Yes, the dissenting Justice argued that the claim should be allowed to proceed because intentional infliction of emotional distress is a separate and distinct tort from criminal conversation. The dissent reasoned that while criminal conversation focused on the marriage and the exclusive right to sexual intercourse, intentional infliction of emotional distress focuses on the specific emotional harm done to the individual plaintiff. The dissent noted that the legislature did not expressly abolish the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, the dissent argued that the public policy concerns regarding blackmail and abuse are less relevant here because the strict requirements of proving 'extreme and outrageous' conduct serve as a safeguard against frivolous suits.



Analysis:

This case significantly reinforces the scope of 'heart balm' statutes, which were designed to abolish civil lawsuits based on romantic or marital grievances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court made it clear that plaintiffs cannot bypass these statutes by creative pleading or by relabeling a barred claim as a modern tort like intentional infliction of emotional distress. The decision establishes a 'substance over form' approach: if the factual basis of the lawsuit creates a barred claim (adultery), adding extra details (concealment) does not validate the action. This ruling protects courts from becoming arenas for airing private marital disputes and limits potential liability for third parties involved in extramarital affairs.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Koestler v. Pollard (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"