Richard M. Jones v. Todd v. Swanson

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-2857

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; September 3, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A jury awarded Richard M. Jones $450,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages against Todd V. Swanson in a diversity action for alienation of affection. Todd appealed the district court's denial of his motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law, but the appellate court affirmed the ruling, contingent upon Richard accepting a remittitur order on the verdict.

The background involves Donna Jones and Todd Swanson, who had a brief romantic relationship in 1977 and 1978 before losing contact for twenty years. During their separation, Todd became an orthopaedic surgeon in Las Vegas, while Donna married Richard Jones in 1981, with whom she had four children. By 1998, Donna expressed dissatisfaction with her marriage and engaged in late-night drinking and socializing. After a night of heavy drinking in August 1998, Donna ended up in bed with Ted Ries, though they did not recall the details of the encounter and believed they did not have intercourse.

Upon returning home, Donna concealed the incident from Richard. She later contacted Ries, indicating her intention to discuss the matter in her impending divorce. Shortly thereafter, Donna and Todd reconnected when Todd's father was hospitalized, leading to lunch meetings where Donna discussed her marital dissatisfaction, including a lack of sexual intimacy with Richard.

Todd testified that during a lunch, Donna rubbed her leg against his, and afterward, they took a walk in a park where he put his arm around her and later placed his hand on her knee. Donna expressed her dissatisfaction with her marriage, stating she loved her husband Richard as the father of her children, but not romantically. She invited Todd to kiss her, and they shared several kisses. Todd mentioned regretting letting Donna go two decades prior, and Donna revealed she had always loved him. 

Following Todd's return to Las Vegas, they had conflicting accounts regarding who initiated a series of phone calls over the next few weeks, during which they expressed love for each other and discussed meeting. Todd planned a trip to San Francisco and invited Donna to join him, which she accepted, arranging her travel under the pretense of visiting a college friend. Before her trip, Todd sent her a CD with a song and met her at the airport with flowers. 

In San Francisco, Donna registered at a hotel as 'Mrs. Donna Swanson' but stayed with Todd. They spent the weekend together, during which Todd gave her gifts and introduced her to Wolfgang Schweizer from Plus Orthopedics, who discussed potential employment opportunities for her. After their meeting, Todd and Donna resumed a pattern of frequent communication involving calls, cards, and gifts, during which they talked about leaving their spouses and building a future together. Todd expressed love and concern for Donna and her children, as well as guilt about their affair.

In early November, at Todd's urging, Donna sought counseling regarding divorce and her feelings of unhappiness in her marriage. She later informed Richard about a job opportunity in Europe, while denying any involvement with another man and expressing uncertainty about her feelings for him. Concerned that Richard might suspect her relationship with Todd, she asked Todd to forge a letter from Plus Orthopedics to validate her trip. Todd complied, though the original representative later provided a legitimate letter.

Donna faced a family tragedy when her sister-in-law and nephew died in a car accident, and Todd attended the funeral, which heightened Richard’s suspicions about Todd and Donna's relationship. After the funeral, Donna invited Todd to stay overnight at her home, and he accepted.

Donna and Todd engaged in a romantic affair, during which they spent nights together at Todd's hotel and planned a trip to Europe. Donna later confided in her husband, Richard, about the affair and their travel plans. They met with a counselor to address their relationship and concerns for their children before traveling to Europe in December 1998, where they stayed together for ten nights, with Plus Orthopedics covering Donna’s travel expenses. While in Switzerland, they discussed opening a bank account to hide Todd's assets ahead of his anticipated divorce.

Following the trip, they participated in counseling sessions, and in January 1999, Donna moved out of her family home at Todd's suggestion. Despite their ongoing communications and a meeting at a medical convention in California, Todd began to express doubts about the affair, encouraging Donna to reconcile with Richard. However, his feelings fluctuated, as evidenced by a Valentine’s Day card expressing love for Donna and an intimate encounter after a jog at her home.

In April 1999, Donna returned to live with Richard, who proposed to work on their marriage. However, in July, after meeting Todd for a picnic, they were intimate again. Their relationship cooled until November 1999, when Donna secretly met Todd in Seattle, marking their last intimacy. After Todd informed Donna to reconcile with Richard, she attempted to see him again in San Diego but was ultimately rejected.

Richard filed a lawsuit against Todd for alienation of affection in May 2000, and Donna permanently moved out in June. Richard initiated divorce proceedings in August 2000. The ensuing trial in February 2002 resulted in a jury verdict favoring Richard, awarding $450,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Todd's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial were denied, leading to his appeal.

Todd raises several arguments on appeal regarding the tort of alienation of affection. He claims there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate his intent to alienate Donna's affections or to establish a causal link between his actions and the marriage's breakdown. Todd contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law and abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. He also criticizes the continued recognition of alienation of affection as a legitimate tort, citing its historical criticism and the South Dakota Supreme Court's refusal to abolish it.

The appellate review of the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law is conducted de novo, focusing on whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict while resolving all factual conflicts in favor of the prevailing party. The legal standard requires that the jury be given reasonable inferences from the evidence, and a judgment as a matter of law is only appropriate if no reasonable jurors could differ in their conclusions.

The review of a motion for a new trial is for abuse of discretion, with significant deference given to the district court, which has firsthand experience with the trial proceedings. The elements necessary to establish a claim of alienation of affection include the defendant's wrongful conduct, a loss of affection or consortium, and a causal connection between the conduct and the loss. The fundamental principle of this tort is the malicious interference with the marital relationship, with loss of consortium being the actionable outcome.

In Holmstrom v. Wall, the court defines consortium as the rights arising from marriage, including companionship and affection, and establishes that a loss of these can support an alienation of affection claim. However, if no affection exists to alienate, recovery is not possible. The case discusses that a spouse may transfer affection due to various external factors, and the essence of an alienation of affection claim is enticement, characterized as an intentional tort rather than negligence. It states that intent to alienate does not need to be demonstrated if the conduct is inherently wrongful. 

In the context of Todd's defense, he contends that Donna's marriage to Richard was already failing prior to his involvement, suggesting that his actions were not the proximate cause of her loss of affection. Evidence presented indicates Donna's dissatisfaction with her marriage leading up to the affair, including her late nights out and counseling sessions that indicated her intention to leave. However, there is also evidence that Donna had affection for Richard, as she later sought counseling and attempted reconciliation after the affair. The jury found sufficient evidence to conclude that Todd's involvement alienated Donna's affection for Richard, despite her participation in the affair. Todd's argument that Donna's willingness to engage with him negates her affection for Richard was ultimately rejected, as the jury determined she still loved Richard, which warranted a claim for recovery based on Todd's interference.

Todd contends that Donna's infatuation with him negates the possibility of alienation of affection claims under South Dakota law, referencing the Pankratz case. However, the ruling in Pankratz clarifies that infatuation alone does not justify damages, as the core of alienation of affection claims revolves around enticement. While infatuation can be used to demonstrate a lack of wrongful conduct or causation, it does not absolve a defendant from liability for wrongful actions. The jury could reasonably determine that, despite Donna's infatuation, she left Richard due to Todd's active enticement. 

Todd also asserts he did not intend to harm Richard, but intent to cause harm is not a requisite element for this tort. The consequences of Todd's actions in attempting to win Donna's affection naturally impacted Richard, and it is presumed that individuals intend the repercussions of their voluntary actions. The evidence supported the jury's verdict, and the district court did not err in denying Todd's motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence.

Regarding jury instructions, Todd argued that the court should have provided a specific instruction concerning infatuation, claiming it was essential for his defense. The court, however, maintains that instructions must be assessed collectively to ensure they adequately present the case's issues. The district court has discretion over the form and language of these instructions, which must align with state law. The jury was instructed to determine if Todd intentionally acted to deprive Richard of Donna’s affection or if his wrongful conduct caused the alienation. While the jury was aware of Donna's infatuation, it did not negate Todd's wrongful actions according to the Pankratz precedent, which the court upheld as the jury was properly instructed on the relevant legal standards.

Todd contends that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that, in an alienation of affection case, the defendant must be shown to be the active or aggressive party, referencing the case Pearsall. However, subsequent cases suggest that this interpretation may no longer be applicable or is limited to Pearsall. Plaintiffs have been allowed to recover for alienation of affection even when the errant spouse was a willing participant. The jury was instructed that Donna had to have felt some affection for Richard prior to the affair and that Todd needed to have acted wrongfully rather than passively. This allowed Todd to argue that Donna's actions indicated she did not love Richard and that his conduct did not cause her loss of affection. The court concluded that Pearsall did not support Todd’s proposed instruction related to a defendant’s level of aggressiveness.

Todd also claimed error regarding the court's rejection of his instruction that required the jury to find Todd’s actions were "intentional and malicious." Instead, the court opted for an instruction similar to one approved in Veeder, which required the jury to find wrongful action. The court found no error in this approach.

Regarding Richard's extra-marital affair occurring after he filed for divorce, the district court excluded evidence of this affair on the grounds that Richard did not claim damages for loss of sexual relations and that the evidence would be more prejudicial than probative. Todd argued that this exclusion warranted a new trial. The district court's decision to exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such a ruling is not disturbed unless it significantly prejudices the case. While there were concerns about the relevance of Richard’s affair, it was ultimately deemed that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial impact.

Finally, Todd argued that the $450,000 compensatory damages award was excessive and driven by passion and prejudice. While the determination of a new trial is based on federal procedural law, the assessment of state law claims regarding excessive damages is guided by state case law. The court found no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings concerning liability or the damages awarded.

Under South Dakota law, a jury's verdict may only be overturned in cases of extreme passion, prejudice, or a clear misapplication of law regarding damages. In past alienation of affection cases, such as Veeder, substantial jury awards were upheld, including $65,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. However, the $450,000 compensatory award in the current case is deemed excessive, as evidence of the plaintiff's pre-affair conduct and marital dissatisfaction undermines the claim. The court conditionally affirms the judgment, subject to Richard accepting a remittitur reducing the compensatory damages to $150,000.

Regarding punitive damages, South Dakota law allows such awards if there is evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. Malice can be actual or presumed, with presumed malice arising from willful or wanton actions disregarding others' rights. The court finds sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Todd acted with malice, thus affirming the denial of Todd's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial concerning punitive damages.

The determination of whether punitive damages are excessive relies on a five-factor test, which includes the relationship between compensatory and punitive damages. Here, the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is approximately 1 to 1. Although South Dakota courts have accepted significantly higher ratios, this case's ratio supports affirming the punitive damages awarded.

The jury found that Todd intentionally interfered with Richard's marriage to Donna, resulting in a divorce that affected their four children. A previous South Dakota Supreme Court case awarded $200,000 in punitive damages under similar circumstances, while the current case involves a $500,000 award, which is viewed as excessive given the context. Although Todd pursued Donna, she actively participated, and the marriage was already in trouble prior to this interference, suggesting a reduction of the punitive award is warranted. The court emphasized that the intent behind the wrongdoing is crucial in assessing the severity and appropriateness of punitive damages. While Todd’s actions were serious and intentional, they were not deemed malicious. Todd expressed remorse, contrasting with defendants in past cases who showed no regret, which influences the judgment against a larger punitive award. 

Todd argued that the $500,000 punitive damages are excessive relative to his financial situation, representing nearly 25% of his net worth and almost half of his annual income. The absence of alternative sanctions further led to the conclusion that the punitive damages were unsupported by evidence. The court conditionally affirms the jury's verdict but requires Richard to accept a reduced remittitur of $250,000 for punitive damages and $150,000 for compensatory damages. If Richard does not accept this reduction, the case will be reversed and remanded for a new trial on these claims. Nevada law stipulates that community property is liable for a spouse's debts, thus rejecting Todd's argument that his wife's assets should be exempt from the verdict.