 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodges v. Howell6/8/2000
(For Official Publication)
Third District, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Homer F. Wilkinson
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant, dismissing Plaintiff's action for alienation of affections. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and all inferences reasonably drawn from those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here the Plaintiff. See Jackson v. Righter, 891 P.2d 1387, 1389 (Utah 1995).
In the fall of 1995, Plaintiff learned that his wife (Wife) was having a romantic relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff and Wife separated about a year later, but reconciled soon thereafter. Plaintiff and Wife participated in marriage counseling in late 1996 and early 1997 in an effort to save their marriage. However, Wife's relationship with Defendant continued, and on January 20, 1997, Plaintiff moved out of the marital home. Shortly thereafter, Wife filed for divorce.
Throughout the pendency of the divorce, Plaintiff maintained hope that he and Wife might reconcile. Plaintiff did not realize the extent of Wife's involvement with Defendant until late October 1997, when he learned that they had been engaged in a sexual relationship. On February 4, 1998, the divorce was finalized. On October 20, 1998, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for alienating Wife's affections.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action for alienation of affections is governed by the one-year statute of limitation for seduction. Defendant also contended that the statute began to run on January 20, 1997 at the latest, when Plaintiff moved out of the marital home. Thus, he argued, Plaintiff's complaint was time-barred. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Defendant.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we afford no deference to a trial court's ruling, reviewing its legal conclusions for correctness. See Jackson v. Righter, 891 P.2d 1387, 1389 (Utah 1995).
Plaintiff presents two issues: First, does the one-year statute of limitation for seduction also apply to this action for alienation of affections? And second, if the one-year statute applies, did he present a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat Defendant's motion for summary judgment?
ANALYSIS
We first consider which statute of limitation governs actions for alienation of affections. The tort of alienation of affections is not specifically named in any statute of limitation. Thus, Plaintiff contends, the applicable statute is the four-year, "catch-all" statute of limitation for "relief not otherwise provided for by law." Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3) (1996). Defendant argues here, as he did below, that the one-year statute of limitation for seduction should apply to actions for alienation of affections. See id. § 78-12-29(4) (1996) (establishing one-year statute of limitation "for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or seduction").
We agree with Plaintiff that the proper statute of limitation for alienation of affections is the four-year residual statute of limitation found in section 78-12-25(3). That section "applies to all actions for relief that not otherwise covered by any other section." Branting v. Salt Lake City, 47 Utah 296, 311, 153 P. 995, 1001 (1915). Because alienation of affections is not specifical
Page 1 2 3 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|