The age-old wrong of stealing another man’s wife — “alienation of affection” — is still recognized in six states, while being wholly or mostly abolished in 31 others. It traces its origins back at least to the Teutonic tribes of early Germany in the 10th Century. Now, a well-to-do businessman from Mississippi, facing a verdict of $754,500 for “alienating the affections” of the wife of a plumber, is asking the Supreme Court to impose a constitutional ban on such verdicts at least when they are used to punish the forbidden.

Sandra Day and Johnny Valentine, a plumber, had what apparently was a rocky marriage, with repeated complaints by her about gambling and drinking. They were still married when she went to work for Jerry Fitch, who has interests in the oil and real estate businesses in Marshall County and, according to the state Supreme Court, has a net worth of about $22 million. After Sandra became pregnant, Johnny Valentine grew suspicious, and when a daughter was born, had a test done that showed he was not the father.

He filed for divorce, and it was granted, on grounds of adultery. He sued Fitch in state court in December 1999, arguing that the marriage was normal until Sandra began working for Fitch. Fitch initially denied having sexual relations with Sandra, being the child’s father, or giving money to support the child. In later court filings, he admitted the relationship and his parentage. The jury in the case ruled for Valentine, and awarded $642,000 in compensatory damages and $112,500 in punitive damages. That is the amount Fitch now owes, plus 8 percent annual interest, if the verdict is not overturned.

In upholding the verdict in full, the Mississippi Supreme Court spent little effort on the constitutional due process claim. Initially, it said Fitch had not properly raised the issue, but it went ahead and considered it on the merits, and rejected the challenge. The procedural flaw “notwithstanding,” the state court said, “this Court has consistently recognized punitive damages as a legitimate form of relief in alienation of affections cases.” (Along the way, the state Supreme Court rejected a plea by Fitch … to abolish the common law tort of alienation of affections as outdated.)

[In the] 1990’s, North Carolina juries were even more generous. A 1990 Forsyth County jury award of $300,000 in punitive damages for alienation was sustained on appeal, even though the court struck the compensatory award for $200,000. In 1997 alone, a jury handed down $1.2 million against a female paramour in Forsyth County and awarding another jilted wife $1 million in Alamance County and a deceived husband $243,000 in Wake County. In late 1999, a judge in Durham County valued compensatory damages in a case brought by a husband against his wife’s lover at less than $3,000 in compensatory damages but the judge still awarded $40,000 in punitive damages on the criminal conversation claim.

Even in this decade, the trend of generosity has continued. In August of 2000, a Burke County judge awarded a devastated wife $86,250 for alienation of affection and $15,000 for criminal conversation, totaling $101,250. In May of 2001, in Richmond County, the jury answered the issues of alienation of affection and criminal conversation in favor of the scorned husband and awarded him compensatory damages of $50,000 plus punitive damages of $50,000. Another distraught husband, in Mecklenburg County, received an award of $1.4 million in May, 2001 comprised of $910,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.The jury found the doctor who had had an affair with this man’s wife liable for both alienation of affection and criminal conversation. After an appeal the original award of compensatory damages was reversed, the punitive damages award, however, was upheld. In 2007, a Cook County judge ordered a man to pay $4802 to a husband who was grieving the loss of his wife after an affair.

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact on the marriage.

(1) an act of intercourse and (2) the existence of a valid marriage between the plaintiff and the adulterous spouse, and (3) the bringing of the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations.