360 So.3d 196
Miss.2023Background
- John and Sandra Davis married in 1979; Sandra had sporadic sexual relations with Porter Horgan in the late 1980s–1990s while employed by him. Two children were born during the marriage (1987, 1989).
- The Davises divorced in 2001; John paid some child support and the children had trusts; family moved between Louisiana and Mississippi at times.
- In July 2018 John learned DNA results suggesting the two children were not his biological offspring; he recorded a confrontational call with Sandra in which she admitted she suspected the children resembled Horgan.
- John sued Sandra and Horgan in August 2018 alleging fraud, alienation of affection (against Horgan), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); trial occurred in June 2020 and a jury returned a $700,000 verdict.
- The jury’s damages were awarded via an alienation-of-affection damages instruction; John had withdrawn a combined damages instruction and submitted no replacement instructions for fraud or IIED.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court held the alienation claim time-barred (discovery rule inapplicable), found plaintiff waived damages for other claims by failing to request instructions, reversed the verdict, and rendered judgment for Sandra and Horgan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations for alienation of affection | Davis: discovery rule should toll accrual until he knew or should have known of the affair/parentage issue | Defendants: discovery rule does not apply; accrual occurs when loss of affection is finally accomplished | Discovery rule does not apply; alienation accrues when loss of consortium is finally accomplished |
| Whether Davis’s alienation claim against Horgan was timely | Davis: claim filed after 2018 discovery was timely under discovery rule | Horgan: affair and any resulting loss occurred decades earlier, so the 3-year SOL expired | Alienation claim is time-barred; judgment rendered for Horgan on that claim |
| Whether the $700,000 verdict can be sustained or allocated to fraud/IIED | Davis: jury award should stand and cover other causes of action | Defendants: plaintiff failed to submit proper damages instructions for fraud/IIED and withdrew combined instruction | Plaintiff waived damages for fraud and IIED; jury awarded only alienation damages which are vacated; no remaining damages support judgment |
| Whether the trial court had a duty to give or reform damages instructions sua sponte | Davis: court should have supplied or reformed instructions to allow recovery on other claims | Defendants: court is not required to instruct sua sponte; parties must tender proper instructions | Court not obligated to give or reform instructions sua sponte; omission by plaintiff waives error |
Key Cases Cited
- Fulkerson v. Odom, 53 So.3d 849 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (discovery rule does not toll alienation-of-affection accrual)
- PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So.2d 47 (Miss. 2005) (definition of latent injury for discovery-rule purposes)
- Saunders v. Alford, 607 So.2d 1214 (Miss. 1992) (elements of alienation of affection; accrual when alienation finally accomplished)
- Overstreet v. Merlos, 570 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 1990) (accrual language for alienation claim)
- Carr v. Carr, 784 So.2d 227 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (alienation governed by three-year statute of limitations)
- Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012 (Miss. 2007) (discusses nature and limits of alienation tort)
- Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss. 1993) (court not required to suggest instructions sua sponte)
- Materials Transp. Co. v. Newman, 656 So.2d 1199 (Miss. 1995) (failure to request instruction generally waives appellate relief)