Hill v. Hill – Abuse – Interspousal Immunity
Hill v. Hill, 415 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1982).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law related case involved the issue of interspousal immunity in the context of a suit for false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. Hill married in August 1972 and had a child in 1973. Ms. Hill had two children from a previous marriage. The parties separated in September 1978 and have had a contentious relationship concerning the custody of their minor child. W brought suit for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and abuse of process while dissolution proceedings were pending.
Her complaint alleged that from time to time during the separation she would leave the marital home with the three children. 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 to live in a religious commune.
The wife alleged that H and his lawyer 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. H then sought to have her involuntarily committed for mental illness and succeeded in doing so for one day.
H defended his action with a claim that he had probable cause to have his wife committed. 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 belonged to a religious cult; 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. The trial court granted summary judgment for the H and held that the claims against him were barred under the interspousal immunity doctrine. The district court affirmed but then certified the question of whether interspousal tort immunity should apply to intentional torts.
ISSUE: Is interspousal immunity a valid defense in Florida?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. Interspousal immunity is a valid defense in Florida.
HOLDING AND DECISION: Neither a wife nor a husband should be required to endure abuse from their spouse without a suitable means of retribution. On the other hand, a means of recovery within the traditional tort system can seriously affect the family unit, family financial resources, and could result in multiple interrelated court proceedings. Alternative remedies insofar as the trial court in a dissolution proceeding has authority to require an abusive spouse to pay necessary medical expenses and the authority to consider any permanent injury or disfigurement or loss of earning capacity from such abuse when setting alimony.
We reject again the contention that the Married Woman’s Property Act has abolished the interspousal immunity doctrine in this state. Interspousal tort immunity is a judicial doctrine established to protect the family unit. Under common law, the family has had certain responsibilities, obligations, and special protections. The family continues to be an unofficial sociological governmental structure necessary and vital to our free, independent society. We look with great concern upon societies that break up the family unit and entrust children to the state for education and training. Protection of the family unit is a significant public policy and we are greatly concerned by any intrusion that adversely affects the family relationship or the family resources. Intentional interspousal tort claims ordinarily arise in marital disputes which result in dissolution and which can adversely affect all family members, not just the spouses. We conclude that the abolition would be detrimental to the family as a whole. We choose not to place lawyers, judges, litigation costs, and the full trappings of an adversary tort system into a family dispute while the parties remain married. The ramifications of that type of action are not in any way conducive to a reconciliation. We recognize that intentional tortious conduct by one spouse against the other clearly shows marital disharmony and, in many instances of serious tortious conduct by one spouse against the other, dissolution proceeding follows. Besides issues of contingent fees that might have to be agreed upon between a spouse and a lawyer in such suits, we also find that a separate tort action in an interspousal dispute could be used as simply a legal tool to achieve a better settlement in the dissolution proceeding. It makes no sense to have different courts and separate proceedings determine interrelated issues between spouses.
Florida, interspousal immunity, law, case briefs, family law, Hill v. Hill, mental incompetency, Married Woman’s Property Act, dissolution proceeding, torts