HAKKILA V. HAKKILA
812 P.2d 1320 (N.M. App. 1991)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant husband sought review of the judgment of the District Court of Los Alamos County (New Mexico) which was entered against him in his divorce proceeding with appellee wife.

FACTS: H and W were married in 1975. They permanently separated and H filed for dissolution. W sued in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress. All the experts agreed that W was temporarily emotionally disabled at the time of the hearing. There were several incidents of assault and battery during the course of the marriage. These included H grabbing W's wrist and twisting it severely, throwing her face down across the room into a pot full of dirt, slamming a camper shell down on her head, slamming a trunk lid on her hands and that H also used excessive force during sex. During a Christmas party, W asked H to go home because he was drunk and H began screaming, "You xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (you can image what words were said), leave me alone." While home alone, H would go into rages and scream at her. During another incident H locked W out of the house, and threw his cloths in a camper and drove off H also kept telling W that she was a lesbian and that she was also just stupid, and insane. W got the judgment and H appealed.

ISSUE: Is morally offensive and obnoxious conduct in the marital setting enough to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

RULE: Morally offensive and obnoxious conduct in the marital setting is not enough to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the conduct must be extreme and outrageous.

ANALYSIS: The husband sought review of the judgment entered against him on a tort claim and from the award of attorney 's fees in a divorce proceeding. The husband contended that as a matter of public policy one spouse should not have a cause of action against the other spouse for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court rejected this contention. The court was of the opinion that allowing a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in a marriage was very harmful and should have been avoided. The court determined that the wife had not proven outrage, thus it reversed her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The wife contended that she had to incur attorney's fees because of the obstructive tactics by the husband during the discovery proceedings. The court determined there was no evidence of misconduct during the litigation that justified the award. The court vacated the award of attorney's fee because it was predicated in part on the incorrect assumption that the dissolution proceeding required litigation of the facts necessary to establish tort liability.