82.1 F
Charlotte Amalie
Sunday, July 3, 2022
HomeNewsArchivesV.I. Supreme Court Rules Spouse Is Not Property

V.I. Supreme Court Rules Spouse Is Not Property

V.I. Supreme Court Justice Maria CabretIn a recent precedent-setting decision, the V.I. Supreme Court overturned a $125,000 jury award against a man who was sued for breaking up another man’s marriage, ruling the common law principle cited at trial did not apply, was antiquated and out of step with most U.S. jurisdictions.

In 2009, a jury awarded Dermont Herman $125,000 from Matthias Matthew in relation to Herman’s divorce from his wife, Francisca Herman. The jury awarded Herman $75,000 for alienation of affection, a cause for legal action or "tort" in common law, meaning a person who intentionally causes someone’s spouse to lose affection. And another $50,000 for criminal conversation, another common law tort which makes the third person liable for the sexual relations.

Justice Maria Cabret wrote the May 15 opinion, ruling the lower court erred in relying upon The Second Restatement of Torts, a kind of legal treatise describing the state of common law in the United States. These restatements of law are non-binding in themselves, but describe the legal community’s consensus on common law across jurisdictions, and is incorporated into law as it is cited by courts in deciding cases or cited in legislation.

While some parts of these restatements have been cited in court decisions, Cabret wrote the Supreme Court’s research "has not disclosed a single opinion written in the Virgin Islands to ever cite" the particular common law principles cited in Superior Court.

Advertising (skip)
Advertising (skip)
Advertising (skip)

Furthermore, the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation have been
abolished in the vast majority of American jurisdictions, Cabret said, suggesting that, while these romantic grounds for lawsuits (amatory torts) have roots in legal history, they do not reflect the current state of the courts, society and common law.

"The reasons given for abolishing the amatory torts differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the emphasized concerns are (1) the torts were originally founded on the idea that wives were property of their husbands, (2) the torts have destructive results on existing marriages, and (3) the courts are unable to adequately valuate and address the harms caused by adulterous behavior," Cabret wrote.

On those same grounds, the court vacated the Superior Court’s verdict, remanding the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Keeping our community informed is our top priority.
If you have a news tip to share, please call or text us at 340-228-8784.




Support local + independent journalism in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Unlike many news organizations, we haven't put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as accessible as we can. Our independent journalism costs time, money and hard work to keep you informed, but we do it because we believe that it matters. We know that informed communities are empowered ones. If you appreciate our reporting and want to help make our future more secure, please consider donating.

STAY CONNECTED

20,771FansLike
4,756FollowersFollow

FROM FACEBOOK

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
11 hours ago
Virgin Islands Source

Host Adisha Penn recaps the biggest headlines of the week while Source reporter Knema Willett joins USVI Division of Festivals Director Ian Turnbull in the studio for some behind-the-scenes info on the 2022 St. John Celebration. ... See MoreSee Less

Load more

V.I. Supreme Court Justice Maria CabretIn a recent precedent-setting decision, the V.I. Supreme Court overturned a $125,000 jury award against a man who was sued for breaking up another man's marriage, ruling the common law principle cited at trial did not apply, was antiquated and out of step with most U.S. jurisdictions.

In 2009, a jury awarded Dermont Herman $125,000 from Matthias Matthew in relation to Herman's divorce from his wife, Francisca Herman. The jury awarded Herman $75,000 for alienation of affection, a cause for legal action or "tort" in common law, meaning a person who intentionally causes someone's spouse to lose affection. And another $50,000 for criminal conversation, another common law tort which makes the third person liable for the sexual relations.

Justice Maria Cabret wrote the May 15 opinion, ruling the lower court erred in relying upon The Second Restatement of Torts, a kind of legal treatise describing the state of common law in the United States. These restatements of law are non-binding in themselves, but describe the legal community's consensus on common law across jurisdictions, and is incorporated into law as it is cited by courts in deciding cases or cited in legislation.

While some parts of these restatements have been cited in court decisions, Cabret wrote the Supreme Court's research "has not disclosed a single opinion written in the Virgin Islands to ever cite" the particular common law principles cited in Superior Court.

Furthermore, the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation have been
abolished in the vast majority of American jurisdictions, Cabret said, suggesting that, while these romantic grounds for lawsuits (amatory torts) have roots in legal history, they do not reflect the current state of the courts, society and common law.

"The reasons given for abolishing the amatory torts differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the emphasized concerns are (1) the torts were originally founded on the idea that wives were property of their husbands, (2) the torts have destructive results on existing marriages, and (3) the courts are unable to adequately valuate and address the harms caused by adulterous behavior," Cabret wrote.

On those same grounds, the court vacated the Superior Court's verdict, remanding the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.