 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodges v. Howell6/8/2000
with his or her alienated spouse. See Norton, 818 P.2d at 11-12. The basic right involved in an action for seduction is the seduced victim's right to be free from coerced, illicit sexual intercourse. See Bowers, 202 P. at 1094. Indeed, the two torts do not even share an identity of plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiff in an action for alienation of affections is usually a spouse, and the defendant is typically a paramour. In contrast, the plaintiff in a seduction action is either an unmarried person under the age of eighteen, see Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-4 (1996), or the child's parent or guardian, see id. § 78-11-5.
Finally, unlike the situation in Tolman, not all intentional torts are covered by the one-year statute of limitation for "libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or seduction." Id. § 78-12-29(4); see, e.g., id. § 78-12-25(2) (establishing four-year period for actions brought under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); id. § 78-12-25.1 (establishing four-year limitation period for civil actions for sexual abuse of child); id. § 78-12-26(3) (establishing three-year limitation period for fraud); id. § 78-12-28(2) (Supp. 1999) (establishing two-year period for wrongful death actions, whether intentional or negligent).
In sum, we conclude the applicable statute of limitation for alienation of affections is the four-year statute of section 78-12-25(3). The statute of limitation for alienation of affections "begins to run when the alienation is accomplished, i.e., when love and affection are finally lost." Retherford v. AT&T;Communications, 844 P.2d 949, 975 (Utah 1992). At the earliest, this could have been in the fall of 1995, when Wife's involvement with Defendant began. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on October 20, 1998, less than four years after the earliest time the statute could have begun to run. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint was not barred by the applicable statute of limitation.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's action for alienation of affections is subject to the four-year statute of limitation for "relief not otherwise provided for by law," Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3) (1996), because no other statute of limitation specifically names the alienation of affections cause of action. Moreover, the causes of action for alienation of affections and seduction are not sufficiently related for the seduction statute of limitation to govern both actions. Because Plaintiff's action was subject to the four-year statute of limitation, and his action was timely filed, the trial court incorrectly concluded that his action was barred.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant.
Norman H. Jackson, Associate Presiding Judge
WE CONCUR:
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge
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.
|
|