{ "id": 4177756, "name": "WALTER E. HELLER, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL P. SOMDAHL, MARY JONES, and DENVER JONES, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Heller v. Somdahl", "decision_date": "2010-08-03", "docket_number": "No. COA09-1016", "first_page": "313", "last_page": "318", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 N.C. App. 313" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "673 S.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642933 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390" }, { "page": "391", "parenthetical": "plaintiff's return to marital home does not preclude successful alienation of affections claim" }, { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/673/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551741 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N.E. 99", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100-01" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.Y. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 1905144 ], "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344-45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/248/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511527, 1511629, 1511511, 1511639, 1511292 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0675-01", "/nc/356/0675-02", "/nc/356/0675-03", "/nc/356/0675-05", "/nc/356/0675-04" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 35", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" }, { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251096 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" }, { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "427 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "887" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526013 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "594" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "542 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155561, 1155852, 1155855, 1155631, 1155579 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0356-01", "/nc/351/0356-03", "/nc/351/0356-04", "/nc/351/0356-02", "/nc/351/0356-05" ] }, { "cite": "541 S.E.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155972, 1155750, 1155657, 1155611, 1155774 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0104-04", "/nc/351/0104-01", "/nc/351/0104-05", "/nc/351/0104-02", "/nc/351/0104-03" ] }, { "cite": "514 S.E.2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. App. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11219728 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/133/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 S.E.2d 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744" }, { "page": "747" }, { "page": "745" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.C. App. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525560 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350" }, { "page": "354" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/91/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 N.C. App. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4164597 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" }, { "page": "509" }, { "page": "508" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/195/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527928 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 234", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11889511 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562018 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 331", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9440413 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135589, 135576, 135762, 135672, 135965 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0398-01", "/nc/353/0398-04", "/nc/353/0398-02", "/nc/353/0398-05", "/nc/353/0398-03" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9439464 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0044-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 601, "char_count": 11206, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.284616430089508e-08, "percentile": 0.3872880233558018 }, "sha256": "8de6e56ade3096f3cd61cffeeae73d6956fb5e1603339660ac795f51834bdb46", "simhash": "1:0b692c7ae3b52855", "word_count": 1795 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:03.194595+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and BEASLEY concur." ], "parties": [ "WALTER E. HELLER, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL P. SOMDAHL, MARY JONES, and DENVER JONES, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nWhere evidence established more than a scintilla of proof for every element of plaintiffs alienation of affections claim, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\nOn 2 May 2007, Walter E. Heller (plaintiff) filed an alienation of affections action against Mary Jones (defendant). Plaintiff alleged that defendant\u2019s malicious and intentional acts contributed directly to a loss of affections by encouraging, through intoxication, coercion, and persuasion, plaintiff\u2019s wife, Barbara Heller (Ms. Heller), to engage in an adulterous relationship with Russell P. Somdahl (Somdahl). The case was heard before a jury in Onslow County Superior Court commencing on 14 October 2008. Defendant moved for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. This motion was denied. After defendant presented evidence, defendant renewed her motion for directed verdict. The motion was again denied. The jury found defendant liable on the alienation of affections claim and awarded plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant appeals.\nII. Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict\nIn four assignments of error, defendant argues that her motions for directed verdict were improperly denied pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and 50(b)(1) because plaintiff testified that he was not seeking monetary relief and because the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, was insufficient to survive defendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nIn examining a trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict, our de novo inquiry is whether the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, provides more than a scintilla of evidence to support each element of plaintiff\u2019s claim. Ward v. Beaton, 141 N.C. App. 44, 47, 539 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2000), cert denied, 353 N.C. 398, 547 S.E.2d 431 (2001). If that burden is satisfied, the motion for directed verdict should be denied, and the claim will be submitted to the jury. Id.\nBecause defendant presented evidence after the denial of her motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant waived appellate review of the denial of that motion, and our review is limited to the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss at the close of all evidence. Stallings v. Food Lion, Inc., 141 N.C. App. 135, 137, 539 S.E.2d 331, 332 (2000).\nB. Alienation of Affections\nThe elements of an alienation of affections action are: (1) a marriage with genuine love and affection; (2) the alienation and destruction of the marriage\u2019s love and affection; and (3) a showing that defendant\u2019s wrongful and malicious acts brought about the alienation of such love and affection. Litchfield v. Cox, 266 N.C. 622, 623, 146 S.E.2d 641, 641 (1966).\n1. Genuine Love and Affection\nAn alienation of affections claim requires plaintiff to prove that a happy marriage with genuine love and affection existed between plaintiff and his spouse. Id. The marriage need not be a perfect one, but plaintiff\u2019s spouse must have had \u201csome genuine love and affection for him\u201d before the marriage\u2019s disruption. Brown v. Hurley, 124 N.C. App. 377, 381, 477 S.E.2d 234, 237 (1996). Absent such a showing, an alienation of affections claim will fail. Shaw v. Stringer, 101 N.C. App. 513, 516, 400 S.E.2d 101, 103 (1991).\nPlaintiff presented evidence that he was married to Ms. Heller, and that the Heller family was \u201chappy\u201d and \u201cloving, just a normal all around family.\u201d Ms. Heller testified that before the marriage\u2019s disruption, \u201cI was very much in love with [plaintiff]. He was very much in love with me.\u201d Plaintiff \u201calways came home into the house after work and kissed [Ms. Heller] [on] the back of the neck.\u201d The Hellers participated in the Marine Corps Ball \u201cand [other] stuff like that.\u201d Plaintiff and Ms. Heller had intercourse \u201cthree to four times per week.\u201d When plaintiff was deployed to Iraq, the couple talked nearly every day and sent regular e-mails. To friends of the family, Ms. Heller \u201cappeared] to be a normal and happy wife,\u201d and the couple had a \u201cwarm, loving relationship.\u201d\n2. Alienation of Love and Affection\nAn alienation of affections claim also requires that some of the marriage\u2019s love and affection be alienated and destroyed. E.g., Jones v. Skelly, 195 N.C. App. 500, 507, 673 S.E.2d 385, 390 (2009). The alienation and destruction element is proved by showing \u201cinterference with one spouse\u2019s mental attitude toward the other, and the conjugal kindness of the marital relation.\u201d Id. (quoting Darnell v. Rupplin, 91 N.C. App. 349, 350, 371 S.E.2d 743, 744 (1988)). The loss can be full or partial and can be accomplished through one act or a series of acts. Darnell, 91 N.C. App. at 354, 371 S.E.2d at 747. Even if a plaintiff\u2019s spouse retains feelings and affections for a plaintiff, an alienation of affections claim can succeed. Jones, 195 N.C. App. at 509, 673 S.E.2d at 391 (plaintiff\u2019s return to marital home does not preclude successful alienation of affections claim).\nMs. Heller testified that after her affair with Somdahl, her relationship with plaintiff became \u201cdifferent\u201d and \u201cstrained.\u201d Ms. Heller\u2019s phone calls and e-mails to plaintiff during his deployment in Iraq became quicker and shorter, and plaintiff noticed \u201cdistance and more distraction\u201d from his wife. Upon learning of his wife\u2019s infidelity, sexual intercourse between plaintiff and Ms. Heller ceased. Ms. Heller acted \u201cvery timid, very scared\u201d toward her husband. Plaintiff testified that \u201chis marriage ha[d] been violated.\u201d He also expressed his belief that \u201cthere is no regaining the intimacy and trust to the level that we had.\u201d \u201c[Ms. Heller] couldn\u2019t be honest, [and] she couldn\u2019t be open\u201d after her infidelity.\n3. Wrongful and Malicious Causation bv Defendant\nAn alienation of affections claim must lastly establish that defendant\u2019s wrongful and malicious actions caused the alienation of plaintiff\u2019s spouse. Hutelmyer v. Cox, 133 N.C. App. 364, 369, 514 S.E.2d 554, 558-59, disc. review denied, 351 N.C. 104, 541 S.E.2d 146 (1999), appeal dismissed, 351 N.C. 356, 542 S.E.2d 211 (2000). \u201cThere must be active participation, initiative or encouragement on the part of the defendant in causing one spouse\u2019s loss of the other spouse\u2019s affections for liability to arise.\u201d Peake v. Shirley, 109 N.C. App. 591, 594, 427 S.E.2d 885, 887 (1993). Some cases have required that the defendant\u2019s actions be performed with the intent to cause alienation, Darnell, 91 N.C. App. at 350, 371 S.E.2d at 745, but more recent cases have required only that the defendant acted intentionally in a way that will probably affect plaintiff\u2019s marital relationship, Jones, 195 N.C. App. at 508, 673 S.E.2d at 391. Defendant\u2019s actions must be a proximate cause of the spouse\u2019s alienation. Nunn v. Allen, 154 N.C. App. 523, 533, 574 S.E.2d 35, 42 (2002), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675, 577 S.E.2d 630 (2003); see generally Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 344-45, 162 N.E. 99, 100-01 (1928). Proximate cause does not require that defendant\u2019s actions be the sole cause of alienation; rather, defendant\u2019s actions must be only a \u201ccontrolling or effective cause.\u201d Nunn, 154 N.C. App. at 533, 574 S.E.2d at 42 (quoting Heist v. Heist, 46 N.C. App. 521, 523, 265 S.E.2d 434, 436 (1980)). Therefore, we must decide whether all the evidence presented, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, provides more than a scintilla of evidence that defendant\u2019s actions were a controlling or effective cause of Ms. Heller\u2019s alienation toward plaintiff and were such that a reasonable person in defendant\u2019s position would believe that Ms. Heller\u2019s affections would probably be alienated.\nPlaintiff presented evidence that defendant arrived at the marital home and \u201c[tried] to drag [Ms. Heller] off.\u201d Defendant called plaintiff\u2019s home and told plaintiff that it was \u201cnone of [his] business what his wife did\u201d and that Ms. Heller was \u201ca grown woman.\u201d Plaintiff also presented evidence that defendant threatened Ms. Heller. Ms. Heller testified that \u201cif I broke Mr. Somdahl\u2019s heart, [defendant and defendant\u2019s spouse] were going to break my legs, make sure my children were hurt, [and] my husband would find out about it.\u201d Ms. Heller testified that defendant prevented plaintiff from talking with Ms. Heller by \u201c[moving] [her] phone around the house so [Ms. Heller] would get bad reception.\u201d Ms. Heller testified that Somdahl purchased a ring for her, but defendant took the ring from Ms. Heller, \u201cput [it] on . . . and said [Ms. Heller] wasn\u2019t going to get it until [she] was separated and divorced from [plaintiff].\u201d Evidence also indicated that defendant \u201c[arranged] all sorts of activities ... to keep [Ms. Heller] away from [her] husband.\u201d Defendant testified that she allowed Ms. Heller, who she knew did not drink alcohol responsibly, to attend defendant\u2019s party at which alcohol was served. Defendant also testified that during at least part of Ms. Heller\u2019s relationship with Somdahl, defendant was aware Ms. Heller was married and resided in the marital home.\nThe evidence, taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff, established all elements of an alienation of affections claim. The evidence showed: (1) that the Hellers had a happy, healthy marriage with affection and love; (2) that the affections of Ms. Heller were destroyed and alienated when she retreated physically and emotionally from the relationship; and (3) that defendant engaged in conduct, such as encouraging Ms. Heller\u2019s adulterous relationship with Somdahl and preventing communication between plaintiff and Ms. Heller, that would probably affect plaintiff\u2019s marital relationship with his wife.\nDefendant presents as an issue, but does not argue, the question of whether the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict because plaintiff testified he did not want monetary relief. We deem that argument to be abandoned and do not consider it. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nIII. Conclusion\nWe hold that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, established more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of plaintiffs alienation of affections claim against defendant. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges BRYANT and BEASLEY concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief was submitted for plaintiff-appellee.", "Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC by Daniel R. Flebotte, for defendant-appellant Mary Jones." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WALTER E. HELLER, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL P. SOMDAHL, MARY JONES, and DENVER JONES, Defendants\nNo. COA09-1016\n(Filed 3 August 2010)\nAlienation of Affections\u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe trial court did not err in an alienation of affections case by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence where the evidence established more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the claim.\nAppeal by defendant Mary Jones from judgment entered 21 November 2008 by Judge Charles H. Henry in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 2010.\nNo brief was submitted for plaintiff-appellee.\nMerritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC by Daniel R. Flebotte, for defendant-appellant Mary Jones." }, "file_name": "0313-01", "first_page_order": 337, "last_page_order": 342 }