Mary B. Mims v. Robert F. Mims, 305 So.2d 787 (D.C.App.Fla. 1974)

CASE: Woman sues husband for severe emotional distress.

FACTS: Plaintiff wife sued defendant husband after he "induced her to marry him with false and fradulent protestations of love", then, after 10 days, told her that he did not love her and that she would have the leave the house he bought for them. Finally, he "harassed and threatened her with physical injury." The judge dismissed the action with prejudice.

WIFE ARGUES:

• Defendant husband ran her out of the house and inflicted upon her severe emotional distress wilfully and with malice.
• There is no authority which says that her complaint does not present a viable cause of action.

COURT SAYS: Lower court upheld; action properly dismissed.

HOLDING: Trial court properly dismissed wife's claim for wilful infliction of "severe emotional distress" against husband for allegedly persuading her to marry him with false protestations of love and then telling her he didn't love her and "harassing" her out of their home because spouses cannot recover against spouses for torts and because domestic quarrels should not be the subject of suits and jury trials.

RATIONALE:

• The only reason there is no authority for the proposition that this complaint does not provide a viable claim is that nobody has had the chutspah to attempt such a claim previously.
• There can be no recovery for any tort which is committed, as these allegedly were, by one spouse against another during the course of the marriage.
• To permit this complaint to stand would simultaneously be to destroy the beneficent effects of the "no-fault" dissolution statute and to turn every dissolution case into two cases—one to secure a dissolution from the chencellor, and another, to secure damages from a jury or trial judge for the "wrongs" done by a tortious spouse.

T O P