Hellmann v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 20 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 72466,72466 |
| Citation | 965 S.W.2d 198 |
| Parties | Robert J. HELLMANN, Appellant, v. Kevin Martin WALSH, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen G. Bell, Ronald J. Wuebbeling, St. Louis, for appellant.
Greg L. Roberts, Darin D. Inglish, Chesterfield, for respondent.
Plaintiff, Robert J. Hellmann, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with a contract. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff filed a three count petition against defendant, Kevin Martin Walsh. Plaintiff alleged alienation of affections in the first count, intentional infliction of emotion distress in the second count and tortious interference with a contract in the third count. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an accompanying memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. 1 Defendant argued that plaintiff's petition failed to state a claim because alienation of affections is not or should not be recognized as a viable cause of action in Missouri. Defendant also contended that if the trial court agreed with his argument regarding alienation of affections then the other two counts "must also fall." The trial court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss without stating a reason. This appeal followed.
Where as in the present case, the trial court does not set forth the reason for dismissal, we presume the court based its ruling on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Brandin v. Brandin, 918 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In reviewing dismissal of plaintiff's action, we treat the facts alleged as true and construe all allegations liberally and favorably to plaintiff. Tillison v. Boyer, 939 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We will reverse the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action for failure to state a claim if, after viewing the pleading in its broadest intendment, the allegations invoke principles of substantive law which may entitle plaintiff to relief. Id.
The issue presented here is whether the tort of alienation of affections has been or should be abolished in Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court has abolished the tort of criminal conversation. Thomas v. Siddiqui, 869 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Mo. banc 1994). However, the majority in Thomas specifically noted that the tort of alienation of aff
ections remained an avenue for a plaintiff spouse to recover for injury. Id. at 741; Van Vooren v. Schwarz, 899 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). We are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court. Van Vooren, 899 S.W.2d at 595. Furthermore, this court relying on Thomas has rejected the argument that the tort of alienation of affections should be abolished. Id. This court stated that it was "not our responsibility to judicially abolish this cause of action." Id. Accordingly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helsel v. Noellsch
...and "tortious interference with contract," where the facts support a claim for alienation of affection. See, e.g., Hellmann v. Walsh, 965 S.W.2d 198, 199-200 (Mo.App.1998); Weicker v. Weicker, 22 N.Y.2d 8, 290 N.Y.S.2d 732, 733-34, 237 N.E.2d 876 (1968); Howton v. Avery, 511 So.2d 173, 174 ......
- Mansion Hills Condominium Ass'n v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS.
-
In re G.P.C. v. Cabral
...court has ruled on an issue. Id. The appeals court must follow the law established by the Missouri Supreme Court. Hellmann v. Walsh, 965 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App. 1998). Therefore, we have subject matter jurisdiction and may analyze the facts of this case in conjunction with the In Herndon, ......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. Hamilton, No. WD70327 (Mo. App. 4/14/2009)
...As an intermediate appellate court, this court is bound to follow the law established by the Missouri Supreme Court. Hellmann v. Walsh, 965 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo. App. 1998); MO. CONST. art. V, § 2 (1945). As this court is a court of error and not a policy making court, we are bound to follow......