Aichlmayr v. Lynch, 407--III
| Decision Date | 16 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 407--III,407--III |
| Citation | 6 Wn.App. 434,493 P.2d 1026 |
| Parties | Anthony F. AICHLMAYR, Appellant, v. Patrick S. LYNCH, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
William P. Wimberley of Richter, Wimberley & Ericson, Spokane, for appellant.
John G. Layman, Spokane, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a favorable judgment, against defendant in his sole and separate capacity, seeking to include therein defendant's interest in his marital community property.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for alienation of affection and criminal conversation based on defendant's conduct with plaintiff's former wife. The jury found for plaintiff on both claims. During trial plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to include defendant's wife and the marital community as codefendants. The trial court reserved its ruling until entry of the verdict. It then denied plaintiff's motion. We affirm.
Tortious conduct by the husband, committed in the management of, or for the benefit of, the marital community, renders the community liable under a theory of respondeat superior, and not because of the fact of the tortfeasor's marital relationship with his spouse. Smith v. Retallick, 48 Wash.2d 360, 293 P.2d 745 (1956); La Framboise v. Schmidt,42 Wash.2d 198, 254 P.2d 485 (1953); McHenry v. Short, 29 Wash.2d 263, 186 P.2d 900 (1947): Bergman v. State, 187 Wash. 622, 60 P.2d 699, 106 A.L.R. 1007 (1936); Benson v. Bush, 3 Wash.App. 777, 477 P.2d 929 (1970). The claims of alienation of affection of another man's wife, or the commission of criminal conversation with her, bear no relation to the tortfeasor's bona fide management of community property or to any benefit of the Community. See DePhillips v. Neslin, 139 Wash. 51, 245 P. 749 (1926).
Appreciating the tenuousness of the benefit-management theory in the instant case, plaintiff invites us to modify our community property law so that defendant's interest in community property may be reached to satisfy the separate judgment against him. (See McDonald v. Senn, 53 N.M. 198, 204 P.2d 990 (1949); United States v. Overman, 424 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1970); 13 Wayne L.Rev. 706, 720 (1967).) We decline the invitation. The change plaintiff desires is more properly a legislative matter.
Judgment affirmed.
I concur in the result since it is consistent with the existing law of this state. However, I have difficulty justifying law that creates a cause of action for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clayton v. Wilson
...not liable when husband ceased community activity to begin fistfight with another man for purely personal reasons); Aichlmayr v. Lynch, 6 Wash.App. 434, 493 P.2d 1026 (1972) (marital community not liable when husband engaged in criminal conversation and alienation of affection with another ......
-
Brown v. Spokane County Fire Protection Dist. No. 1
...(1974). A spouse can bind the community and create community liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Aichlmayr v. Lynch, 6 Wash.App. 434, 435, 493 P.2d 1026 (1972). In order to establish community liability, the tortious act of a spouse must have been committed for the benefit ......
-
Bank of Washington v. Hilltop Shakemill, Inc., 7670-1-I
...may escape liability altogether for Hilltop's obligations. See Stockand v. Bartlett, 4 Wash. 730, 31 P. 24 (1892); Aichlmayr v. Lynch, 6 Wash.App. 434, 493 P.2d 1026 (1972). The bank, however, should know the State's community property laws as they relate to banking. The bank knew that Robe......