{ "id": 8527817, "name": "WILLIAM L. GRAY v. WALLACE NEIL HOOVER", "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Hoover", "decision_date": "1989-08-01", "docket_number": "No. 8821SC874", "first_page": "724", "last_page": "731", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 N.C. App. 724" } ], "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": "170 S.E. 2d 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" }, { "page": "115-16" }, { "page": "219-20" }, { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed." }, { "page": "116" }, { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547525 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" }, { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623663 ], "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553268 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525303 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 S.E. 2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4737990, 4731502, 4734361, 4732348, 4740287 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0691-01", "/nc/318/0691-05", "/nc/318/0691-02", "/nc/318/0691-03", "/nc/318/0691-04" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 N.C. App. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358264 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/82/0061-01" ] }, { "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": "319 S.E. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4685671, 4687184, 4681304, 4680669, 4685246 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0399-01", "/nc/311/0399-05", "/nc/311/0399-03", "/nc/311/0399-02", "/nc/311/0399-04" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E. 2d 239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" }, { "page": "241" }, { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526469 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399" }, { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/67/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 N.C. App. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522450 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "556" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/60/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 S.E. 2d 32", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520033 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "226" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E. 2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526878 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0331-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 650, "char_count": 17644, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.1014395257064904e-07, "percentile": 0.909718095533755 }, "sha256": "d929381b975f16edf973bef588ec429a2505b50fa197d1df2b8c9ef15ed8d411", "simhash": "1:3203d833e2ed2c7f", "word_count": 2845 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:12.068465+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges EAGLES and COZORT concur." ], "parties": [ "WILLIAM L. GRAY v. WALLACE NEIL HOOVER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nPlaintiff, William L. Gray, brought this action against defendant, Wallace Neil Hoover, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. Plaintiff was the only witness to testify at trial. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict as to the alienation of affections claim. The criminal conversation issue was submitted to the jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $30,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and ordered the verdict and judgment for plaintiff set aside and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.\nThe two issues presented for review are: I) whether there was more than a scintilla of evidence presented on each element of plaintiff\u2019s alienation of affections claim so as to render it error for the trial court to have granted defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict; II) whether there was more than a scintilla of evidence presented on each element of plaintiff\u2019s criminal conversation claim so as to render it error for the trial court to have granted defendant\u2019s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nI\nWe note initially that plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 10(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure which requires that each assignment of error contained in the record on appeal \u201cstate plainly and concisely and without argumentation the basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d App. R. 10(c); see generally Kimmel v. Brett, 92 N.C. App. 331, 374 S.E. 2d 435 (1988). Plaintiff\u2019s exceptions upon which his assignments of error are based are therefore deemed abandoned. App. R. 10(c) (exceptions upon which assignments of error are based are deemed abandoned if assignments of error do not state the basis upon which the error is assigned). Nevertheless, we exercise our discretion under Appellate Rule 2, suspend the rules and decide the case on the merits. App. R. 2.\nThe standard for appellate review of a trial court\u2019s decision on a motion for a directed verdict is whether the evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant, is sufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict in favor of the non-movant. Broyhill v. Coppage, 79 N.C. App. 221, 226, 339 S.E. 2d 32, 36 (1986); see Harvey v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Inc., 60 N.C. App. 554, 556, 299 S.E. 2d 664, 666 (1983). The evidence is sufficient to withstand the motion if there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support each element of the non-movant\u2019s case. Id.\nPlaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting the defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict on plaintiff\u2019s claim for alienation of affections because there was more than a scintilla of evidence to support each element of plaintiff\u2019s claim. We agree.\n\u201cIn order to withstand defendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict, plaintiff must have presented evidence to show that: (1) plaintiff and his wife were happily married and a genuine love and affection existed between them; (2) the love and affection was alienated and destroyed; and (3) the wrongful and malicious acts of defendant produced the alienation of affections.\u201d Chappell v. Redding, 67 N.C. App. 397, 399, 313 S.E. 2d 239, 241, disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 399, 319 S.E. 2d 268 (1984). The term \u201cmalicious acts\u201d has been interpreted by this court to mean \u201c \u2018unjustifiable conduct causing the injury complained of.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 400, 313 S.E. 2d at 241 (quoting Heist v. Heist, 46 N.C. App. 521, 523, 265 S.E. 2d 434, 436 (1980)). Plaintiff offered the following testimony at trial as evidence that he and his wife were \u201chappily married and a genuine love and affection existed between them\u201d: \u201cWell, I thought we had a wonderful marriage.\u201d Plaintiff expounded on this statement by telling how he and his wife had built a new home, were doing some part-time farming and had at one time thirty head of cattle and three registered quarter horses. Although this evidence is at best marginal, we conclude that when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is more than the scintilla of evidence required in order to survive a directed verdict motion.\nWe also conclude plaintiff presented more than a scintilla of evidence that the love and affection that existed between plaintiff and his wife was alienated and destroyed. Plaintiff testified that after defendant started working with his wife, his wife began turning cold towards the plaintiff and their sex life started deteriorating. Plaintiff also testified that his wife turned down a trip to Europe and told plaintiff she did not want to go anywhere with him. Plaintiff\u2019s wife also told plaintiff she did not love him anymore and loved defendant.\nThere was likewise more than a scintilla of evidence that the \u201cwrongful and malicious acts of defendant produced the alienation of affections.\u201d Defendant told plaintiffs wife that \u201canytime she got tired of [plaintiff], why didn\u2019t she just take her part of what [she and plaintiff] owned and run.\u201d Defendant also sent plaintiffs wife gifts and notes and often talked to plaintiffs wife on the telephone at night. When plaintiff found defendant in his trailer hanging onto plaintiffs wife, plaintiff told defendant to stay away from his wife. A couple of weeks later, plaintiff again found defendant at the lake hanging onto plaintiffs wife. These actions by the defendant are evidence of \u201cunjustifiable conduct\u201d causing the alienation of affections.\nWhen taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was more than a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the tort of alienation of affections. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court granting a directed verdict on this issue and remand the issue for trial.\nII\nPlaintiff also assigns as error the trial court\u2019s order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of criminal conversation. The same rules used to test the sufficiency of the evidence upon a motion for directed verdict apply to the determination of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Allen v. Pullen, 82 N.C. App. 61, 64, 345 S.E. 2d 469, 472 (1986), disc. rev. denied, 318 N.C. 691, 351 S.E. 2d 738 (1987). The evidence is sufficient to withstand the motion if there is more than a scintilla of evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the party who won the verdict, to support each element of the winning party\u2019s case. Clark v. Moore, 65 N.C. App. 609, 610, 309 S.E. 2d 579, 580-81 (1983).\nCriminal conversation is an action for damages. 2 Lee, North Carolina Family Law Sec. 208 at 567 (4th ed. 1980). The elements of this cause of action are: \u201c(1) marriage between the spouses and (2) sexual intercourse between defendant and plaintiff\u2019s spouse during the marriage.\u201d Chappell, 67 N.C. App. at 401, 313 S.E. 2d at 241; see 2 Lee, North Carolina Family Law Sec. 208 at 567. The parties stipulated there was a \u201cmarriage between the spouses\u201d satisfying the first element of the cause of action. Id. The question we are left to decide is whether there was more than a scintilla of evidence that the defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife had sexual intercourse during plaintiff\u2019s marriage. We conclude there was sufficient evidence.\nIn an action for criminal conversation, it is not necessary to show the sexual intercourse by direct proof. 2 Lee, North Carolina Family Law Sec. 208 at 571. \u201c[I]t may be shown by circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of the parties can be reasonably inferred.\u201d Id. Here, there was evidence that the plaintiff twice caught the defendant in plaintiff\u2019s trailer at the lake with defendant hanging onto plaintiff\u2019s wife\u2019s arm. Plaintiff also testified, without objection, that plaintiff\u2019s wife and defendant were living together in a condominium in Florida while plaintiff and his wife were still married. Plaintiff and a private investigator went to Florida and observed defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife arriving arm in arm in the late evening at the condominium, the lights going out inside the condominium and observed that the two did not exit the condominium until daytime. The cars of defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife were parked outside the condominium all night and were not moved. Plaintiff also testified without objection that the defendant admitted to plaintiff in a phone conversation that he was having sex with plaintiff\u2019s wife. It is significant that defendant did not object to plaintiff\u2019s testimony nor did defendant or plaintiff\u2019s wife testify at trial. In Warner v. Torrence, 2 N.C. App. 384, 163 S.E. 2d 90 (1968), this court stated the following in regard to a defendant not testifying in a criminal conversation case:\nPlaintiff\u2019s charge against defendant was adultery; if the evidence of so serious a charge was not true, the defendant had the opportunity to refute it. Whether the charge was true or not, the falsity of it was peculiarly within defendant\u2019s knowledge. The fact that [he] did not refute the damaging charge made by plaintiff, it may be that this was a silent admission of the charge made against [him].\nId. at 387, 163 S.E. 2d at 92 (quoting Walker v. Walker, 201 N.C. 183, 184, 159 S.E. 363, 364 (1931)). We hold that the evidence when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of criminal conversation.\nThe defendant argues in brief and argued to the court below that plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of damages sufficient to support the verdict reached by the jury. We disagree.\nIn Sebastian v. Kluttz, 6 N.C. App. 201, 170 S.E. 2d 104 (1969), this court addressed the issue of damages in a cause of action for criminal conversation: \u201c[T]he measure of damages is incapable of precise measurement; however, it has been held, and we think properly so, that the jury in awarding damages may consider the loss of consortium, mental anguish, humiliation, injury to health, and loss of support . . . .\u201d Id. at 220, 170 S.E. 2d at 115-16. \u201cConsortium\u201d is defined as:\nConjugal fellowship of husband and wife, and the right of each to the company, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.\nId. at 219-20, 170 S.E. 2d at 115 (quoting Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.) (emphasis added). Although there was no evidence presented of loss of support or injury to health, there was sufficient evidence of plaintiffs loss of consortium, mental anguish, and humiliation to support the award of compensatory damages. Plaintiff\u2019s testimony showed that after one incident of finding defendant in plaintiff\u2019s trailer with plaintiff\u2019s wife, plaintiff\u2019s wife told plaintiff she no longer loved him but loved the defendant. Plaintiff\u2019s sex life with his wife began deteriorating. Plaintiff observed defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife drinking out of the same cup with a straw, sharing the same hamburger taking turns eating bites. Additionally, defendant\u2019s phone calls- to plaintiff telling him he was having sex with plaintiff\u2019s wife, the fact that defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife were living together in Florida, and the incident described below in which defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife intentionally kissed in plaintiff\u2019s presence, is evidence from which a jury could find plaintiff suffered mental anguish and loss of consortium. Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the award of compensatory damages.\nWe likewise conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the award of punitive damages. Punitive damages may be awarded \u201cwhere the conduct of the defendant was willful, aggravated, malicious, or of a wanton character.\u201d Sebastian, 6 N.C. App. at 220, 170 S.E. 2d at 116. Here, defendant\u2019s phone calls in which defendant told plaintiff he was having sex with plaintiff\u2019s wife and was going to take plaintiff\u2019s business is some evidence in support of the punitive damages award. Additionally, the defendant\u2019s act of driving up in front of plaintiff\u2019s business, blowing the horn, and then in the presence of plaintiff kissing plaintiff\u2019s wife, unbuttoning her blouse and then putting his hand inside certainly amounts to evidence sufficient for a jury to determine defendant\u2019s conduct was \u201cwillful, aggravated, malicious, or of a wanton character.\u201d Id.\nAccordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of criminal conversation and reinstate the verdict of the jury. The order of the trial court granting a directed verdict on the alienation of affections claim is reversed and the issue remanded for trial. Because the elements of damages for criminal conversation and alienation of affections \u201care so connected and intertwined,\u201d in a subsequent trial of the alienation of affections claim any damages awarded for alienation of affections should be reduced by the amount of damages awarded on the issue of criminal conversation. The compensatory damages awarded should be reduced by $30,000 and any punitive damages awarded should be reduced by $10,000. Sebastian, 6 N.C. App. at 220, 170 S.E. 2d at 116; see D. Dobbs, Remedies Sec. 7.3 at 532 (1973) (where plaintiff has already secured property settlement agreement with disaffected spouse, a credit seems proper in awarding compensatory damages on alienation of affections claim).\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges EAGLES and COZORT concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas J. Keith for plaintiff-appellant.", "Thomas A. Fagerli for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILLIAM L. GRAY v. WALLACE NEIL HOOVER\nNo. 8821SC874\n(Filed 1 August 1989)\n1. Husband and Wife \u00a7 25\u2014 alienation of affections \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict on plaintiffs claim for alienation of affections where defendant offered as evidence of his happy marriage and mutual love and affection toward his wife testimony that he thought they \u201chad a wonderful marriage\u201d and testimony that they had built a new home and were doing some part-time farming; plaintiff offered evidence that the love and affection he and his wife had for each other was alienated and destroyed where he testified that, after defendant started working with his wife, his wife began to turn cold toward plaintiff and their sex life started deteriorating; his wife turned down a trip to Europe and told plaintiff she did not want to go anywhere with him; she also told plaintiff she did not love him anymore and loved defendant; plaintiff presented evidence that the wrongful and malicious acts of defendant produced the alienation of affections where plaintiff testified that defendant told plaintiffs wife that \u201canytime she got tired of [plaintiff], why didn\u2019t she just take her part of what [she and plaintiff] owned and run\u201d; defendant sent plaintiff\u2019s wife gifts and notes and often talked to plaintiff\u2019s wife on the telephone at night; when plaintiff found defendant in his trailer hanging onto plaintiff\u2019s wife, plaintiff told defendant to stay away from his wife; and a couple of weeks later plaintiff again found defendant at the lake hanging onto plaintiff\u2019s wife.\n2. Husband and Wife \u00a7 28\u2014 criminal conversation \u2014sufficiency of evidence\nThere was more than*a scintilla of evidence that defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife had sexual intercourse during plaintiff\u2019s marriage so that the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion for judgment n.o.v. on the issue of criminal conversation where there was evidence that plaintiff twice caught defendant in plaintiff\u2019s trailer at the lake with defendant hanging onto plaintiff\u2019s wife\u2019s arm; plaintiff testified without objection that plaintiff\u2019s wife and defendant were living together in a condominium in Florida while plaintiff and his wife were still married; defendant admitted to plaintiff in a phone conversation that he was having sex with plaintiffs wife; and defendant did not object to plaintiff\u2019s testimony, nor did defendant or plaintiff\u2019s wife testify at trial.\n3. Husband and Wife \u00a7 29\u2014 criminal conversation \u2014 compensatory damages \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence of plaintiff\u2019s loss of consortium, mental anguish, and humiliation was sufficient to support an award of compensatory damages in plaintiff\u2019s action for criminal conversation where the evidence tended to show that after one incident of finding defendant in plaintiff\u2019s trailer with plaintiff\u2019s wife, plaintiff\u2019s wife told plaintiff she no longer loved him but loved defendant; plaintiff\u2019s sex life with his wife began deteriorating; plaintiff observed defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife drinking out of the same cup with a straw, sharing the same hamburger, and taking turns eating bites; defendant called and told him he was having sex with plaintiff\u2019s wife; defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife lived together in Florida; and defendant and plaintiff\u2019s wife intentionally kissed in plaintiff\u2019s presence.\n4. Husband and Wife \u00a7 29\u2014 criminal conversation \u2014 punitive damages \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to support an award of punitive damages in an action for criminal conversation where defendant made phone calls to plaintiff and ,told plaintiff he was having sex with plaintiff\u2019s wife and was going to take plaintiff\u2019s business, and defendant drove up in front of plaintiff\u2019s business, blew the horn, and then in the presence of plaintiff kissed plaintiff\u2019s wife, then unbuttoned her blouse and put his hand inside.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Seay (Thomas W.j, Judge. Judgment entered 25 March 1988 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 February 1989.\nThomas J. Keith for plaintiff-appellant.\nThomas A. Fagerli for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0724-01", "first_page_order": 754, "last_page_order": 761 }