A jury has found that a South Dakota woman did not entice a co-worker to leave a “happy and contented” marriage, rejecting an alienation of affections suit in one of the few states that still recognizes the archaic tort.

Hayley Hilton had an affair with Ernest Christiansen while he was living in Aberdeen, S.D. After he divorced Lemlem Kebede, she sued Hilton for acquiring “an improper and undue influence” over he ex-husband, leaving her home “desolate and ruined” and her family life “destroyed.”

“Like all marriages, Lemlem & Christiansen's was not perfect,” she argued in her trial brief. “However, the evidence at trial will show that the couple shared a substantial degree of affection; supported each other emotionally; and enjoyed a strong sense of companionship and adventure.”

The couple's home was in Minnesota, a state which no longer allows alienation of affections claims, but Kebede was able to sue in federal court under South Dakota law. She was seeking up to $100,000 in damages -- $50,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitives.

Only South Dakota, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah still persist in fully recognizing the tort of alienation of affections. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a $750,000 jury award against a Mississippi man.

But the jury in Kebede's case had the good sense to find for her ex-husband, who testified that he had long been unhappy in his marriage to her and moved to Aberdeen because of the problems they were having. “Do you have any belief that my client enticed you away from your marriage?” Hilton's attorney asked Christiansen in a deposition.

“No,” he replied.

“She didn't trick you or anything like that?” the lawyer asked.

“I don't believe so,” Christiansen said. “I was a grown adult making my decisions, whether they were good or bad.”

A Mississippi Supreme Court justice has said that far from being a “means of preserving marriages and protecting families,” alienation of affections suits "inevitably do more to hurt families ... The intimate details of the marriage, and its breakdown, are revealed for all to see as the parties attempt to assassinate the character of their adversaries.” Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012 (2007).

Recalling the details of his marriage, Christiansen said he “just didn't feel right to get married” and Kebede alienated him with her “demeaning” behavior. A turning point was “when she told me I needed to lose weight during intercourse. I didn't want to have intercourse anymore.”

As Hilton's attorney pointed out in his trial brief, Kebede had opted “to demean the courts and herself by pursuing this action.”

Christiansen and Hilton broke up after his divorce from Kebede. He then married another woman, but that marriage, too, ended in divorce. “I want everybody to know that I don't know what love is anymore,” he testified.

By Matthew Heller
9/11/08