Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W married in August of 1972 and had a child in 1973. The wife had two children by a prior marriage. The parties separated in September 1978, and have since had a contentious relationship concerning the custody of their minor child. When dissolution proceedings were pending, W instituted this action for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and abuse of process. Her complaint alleged that from time to time during the separation she would leave the marital home, taking the three children with her. In an effort to have her return home, the husband, upon locating the family, would forcibly remove the parties' child from the wife's custody and would threaten to obtain a divorce and sell the marital home. The wife alleged that she believed she could not retain custody in the city of the marital home and therefore moved herself and the children to Tennessee where they resided in a religious commune. The wife alleged that the husband and his attorney thereafter illegally subpoenaed her bank records to locate her. The husband then flew to Tennessee to again take custody of the child. The wife returned to Florida and, with several friends, visited the child at the marital home, at which time the husband called the police and had her vacate the premises. The final and principal allegation is that the husband sought to have her involuntarily committed for mental illness and that he succeeded in doing so for a one-day period. She asserted these actions were committed willfully and maliciously. H defended his action with a claim that he had probable cause to have his wife committed. As grounds, he asserted that his wife had previously experienced a mental breakdown requiring her confinement in a straitjacket; that she had been previously committed for mental incompetency for three and one-half months; that she followed a charismatic movement, devoting much of her time to religious writing inspired by divine trances; and that she had destroyed a new television set, claiming it was an instrument of the devil, after which 'she affixed a makeshift shrine which included a Bible, candles, and other paraphernalia having meaning only to her.' The husband claimed that he did not act maliciously but only for the safety and welfare of the parties' five-year-old daughter. H presented affidavits from a minister to help buttress his claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the husband, finding that, under the interspousal immunity doctrine. The district court affirmed but then certified as a question of great public importance whether interspousal tort immunity should apply to an intentional tort.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co