Richardson v. Richardson

906 N.W.2d 369 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2013, Sally (W) worked as a part-time escort. In February, Michael (H) solicited W by phone, but the two did not arrange a meeting. In May 2013, H and W meet at a Walmart in Rapid City, South Dakota, by happenstance. W had ceased working as an escort. H did not initially recognize her as the woman he had solicited in February. The two decided to schedule a date. H recognized W as the person he had once solicited, and W disclosed her past as an escort. H wanted Sally to continue working as an escort. H provided her a cellphone and business cards and began prostituting her online through various websites. H also drove her to her appointments and watched her liaisons with clients through a laptop or iPad. H became physically and verbally abusive toward W early on in the relationship. He repeatedly threatened to kill W or himself, and in January 2014, H attempted suicide. H became violent whenever she proposed quitting. Law enforcement received numerous 911 calls reporting domestic abuse. In May 2014, despite H's abusive treatment, W married H. According to W, she still cared for Hl and wanted to make the relationship work. However, W claimed she continually lived in fear for her life and developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. H sexually abused Sally. He demanded she engage in infantilizing conduct. H forced W to perform unsafe and demeaning sexual acts against her will. W suffered life-threatening health complications. In September 2014, the two separated. H filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences, and W counterclaimed for divorce based on adultery, extreme cruelty, and habitual intemperance. The parties ultimately settled and divorced on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The settlement agreement contained a mutual release; however, it provided an exception permitting either party to pursue nonproperty causes of action against the other. In April 2015, a decree of divorce was granted. W sued H for IIED. H moved to dismiss citing the Pickering case which bars former spouses from suing each other for IIED when the claim is based on conduct that served as the basis for the parties' divorce. The circuit court granted H's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. W appealed. W observes that the Legislature previously abolished the common-law doctrine of interspousal immunity and permitted tort suits between spouses.