Coulson v. Steiner
2017 Alas. LEXIS 23
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Coulson married Omadlao in 2009; Omadlao began a relationship with Steiner in May 2013 and later gave birth to a child. Paternity tests later showed Steiner was the father, not Coulson.
- During the divorce proceedings Omadlao obtained interim spousal support and medical expense orders based on representations that Coulson was the child’s father and that she faced homelessness and pregnancy-related inability to work.
- Coulson sued Steiner after the divorce, alleging (1) alienation of affections, (2) fraud and civil conspiracy (asserting Steiner helped conceal paternity and misrepresent Omadlao’s finances), and (3) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Steiner moved for summary judgment arguing alienation of affections is not a recognized tort in Alaska and that the other claims were essentially the same barred claim.
- The superior court granted summary judgment on all claims and denied Coulson additional discovery. Coulson appealed the summary judgment and discovery rulings.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the alienation claim but reversed as to the fraud/conspiracy and emotional-distress claims, holding those claims could rely on alleged misconduct during the divorce proceedings rather than on causes of action for losses resulting from the divorce itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska recognizes the tort of alienation of affections | Coulson: Steiner induced the breakdown of the marriage and is liable. | Steiner: Alaska does not recognize alienation of affections; summary judgment warranted. | Court: Alienation of affections is not a valid cause of action in Alaska; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether fraud and civil-conspiracy claims are barred as claims for economic loss from divorce | Coulson: Fraud/conspiracy allege independent misrepresentations (paternity, finances) during litigation, not mere divorce-caused loss. | Steiner: These claims are artful pleadings that attempt to evade Alaska’s bar on divorce-related torts. | Court: Claims based on pre- or intra-litigation fraudulent misrepresentations are not per se barred; summary judgment reversed as to these claims. |
| Whether IIED/negligent infliction claims based on the affair are barred | Coulson: Emotional-distress claims arise from actionable conduct (fraud, misrepresentations) during proceedings and the affair. | Steiner: Such claims are just another form of divorce-related economic-loss suit and thus barred. | Court: To the extent these claims allege harm from conduct during the divorce proceedings (e.g., fraudulent misrepresentations), they are not barred; summary judgment reversed on these claims. |
| Whether the superior court abused discretion by denying additional discovery before summary judgment | Coulson: Needed more discovery to oppose summary judgment under Alaska R. Civ. P. 56(f). | Steiner: Discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the summary judgment motion. | Court: Did not decide abuse of discretion because two claims survive; instructs that R. 56(f) continuances should be freely granted to avoid premature summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chizmar v. Mackie, 896 P.2d 196 (Alaska 1995) (economic losses resulting from divorce are not recoverable)
- Clemensen v. Providence Alaska Medical Center, 203 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009) (reaffirming Chizmar and that damages caused by filing a divorce action are not recoverable)
- Seybert v. Alsworth, 367 P.3d 32 (Alaska 2016) (standard for affirming on independent grounds)
- Gilbert v. Sperbeck, 126 P.3d 1057 (Alaska 2005) (litigation privilege principles)
- Lawson v. Helmer, 77 P.3d 724 (Alaska 2003) (litigation privilege analysis)