Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burgess v. Burgess
Citations: 417 So. 2d 1173; 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20889Docket: No. AJ-59
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 16, 1982; Florida; State Appellate Court
Mrs. Burgess appeals the trial court's dismissal of her civil damages claim under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), due to interspousal tort immunity as established in Raisen v. Raisen. Mr. Burgess, after filing for divorce, allegedly intercepted and recorded Mrs. Burgess’ phone conversations and used the recordings in the dissolution proceedings. The trial court dismissed her case, citing the interspousal immunity doctrine, which aims to preserve family harmony and prevent trivial claims. Despite the trial judge's reluctance and acknowledgment that the doctrine may not be applicable in this case, the court affirmed the dismissal based on established precedent. The court noted that while the doctrine traditionally serves to promote domestic peace, exceptions may exist when statutory rights, such as privacy protections under Chapter 934, outweigh these considerations. The statute allows individuals to seek civil damages for violations of their communication privacy, suggesting a potential conflict with the interspousal immunity doctrine in this context. The legislature's use of the term 'any' is interpreted as clear language that indirectly abrogates interspousal tort immunity in this context. Traditional justifications for such immunity are outweighed by the individual's privacy interests, particularly given the existing discord in the Burgess marriage, where Mr. Burgess's alleged wiretapping occurred during dissolution proceedings. The argument for maintaining marital peace is weakened by the circumstances of the case, as interspousal wiretapping does not support that goal. Additionally, fraud against insurers is not applicable, since intentional torts are typically not covered by insurance, and it is implausible that Mrs. Burgess conspired with her husband to record their private conversations. The focus here is on the right to privacy in communications without being subjected to invasion by a spouse. While Mrs. Burgess had options for criminal charges or relief in dissolution proceedings, the legislature's intent appears to prohibit any interception of oral communication. Consequently, despite affirming the trial court's order, a question is certified to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether interspousal tort immunity prevents a civil lawsuit for damages under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979). Judges SHIVERS and SHAW concur.