Judgment rendered March 4, 2020. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 53,333-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
BOBBIE J. CLAY Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
JAMES EARL SUTTON Defendant-Appellant
Appealed from the Monroe City Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2019CV00032
Honorable Jefferson B. Joyce, Judge
JAMES EARL SUTTON In Proper Person, Appellant
BOBBIE J. CLAY In Proper Person, Appellee
Before PITMAN, GARRETT, and COX, JJ. PITMAN, J.
Defendant James Earl Sutton appeals the judgment of the trial court
rendered in favor of his ex-wife, Plaintiff Bobbie J. Clay, in the amount of
$3,500, which was awarded to her after she filed a suit for “extreme mental
and emotional abuse.” For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial
court is reversed.
FACTS
Plaintiff filed suit in proper person seeking $10,000 against Defendant
and alleged that the suit sought damages for extreme mental and emotional
abuse by her former spouse. A trial was held on February 19, 2019, and
resumed February 21, 2019. The following evidence was adduced.
Plaintiff and Defendant were married to each other in October 2017
and divorced in November 2018. According to Plaintiff, the marriage was
contentious from the very beginning. After the ceremony, Defendant left his
new bride, Plaintiff, at the church and drove away with his ex-wife, their
children and grandchildren in his truck with “just married” written on it.
Plaintiff went home alone. Plaintiff’s one stipulation prior to marriage to
Defendant was that he not be diabetic, because she wanted an intimate
relationship with him, and her former partner had been diabetic and unable
to perform. Apparently, Defendant lied to Plaintiff and claimed his health
was good, but he had been told he was “pre-diabetic.” Plaintiff claimed that
the marriage was not consummated and that Defendant refused to take
medication prescribed by the doctor. Defendant disputed Plaintiff’s version
of these and other facts.
According to Plaintiff, in addition to lying about being diabetic,
Defendant did many things to irritate Plaintiff, including taking his ex-wife and their children to church every Sunday—the same church where Plaintiff
sang in the choir. This was extremely humiliating to Plaintiff because
Defendant sat in church with his ex-wife and children while she was singing,
and everyone at their church witnessed this outlandish behavior and
wondered about what type of wife she was being to him. Also, over
Plaintiff’s objections, Defendant allowed his ex-wife to ride in the front seat
of the truck to church. Plaintiff asked that the ex-wife be relegated to ride in
the back seat, but the ex-wife refused to ride there, and Defendant did not
insist that she do so. Defendant claims he discussed this with Plaintiff and
that Plaintiff accepted the situation with his ex-wife.
Plaintiff incurred many expenses while married to Defendant. She
began insuring him on her automobile policy to save him money. In an
attempt to fit in with her new husband’s family, she purchased 20 bicycles
for his grandchildren. Defendant claimed he told her not to purchase the
bikes, as did his daughter and other family members.
Plaintiff soon tired of the relationship, out of which she was getting
nothing except aggravation and humiliation, so after 4 1/2 months of
marriage, she gathered Defendant’s clothes and other belongings and made
him leave the matrimonial domicile. The couple divorced a year and a
month after they married. Plaintiff was represented, pro bono, by a friend.
After the facts of the unhappiness in the marriage were established
and Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the debts she incurred as a result of the
marriage were heard, the trial court attempted to establish the basis for
Plaintiff’s cause of action.
2 The trial court asked:
So, these things like that you—the money you expended out for him and everything, why didn’t you raise these in the divorce to say, “I should be owed these, you know, the 20 bikes, or the— this was the insurance and all that.” These, you know—when you’re separating your community property, or you’re separating up your divorce, you say these are those things.
Plaintiff responded by stating that her attorney advised her that if
property had to be settled, the action would cost her more than she could
afford, so she decided to just get divorced. She stated she would not have
sued Defendant in the action at bar except for the amount of debt she had as
a result of her marriage to him.
The trial court, without noting that her cause of action was infliction
of emotional abuse, told Plaintiff that the proof of her claim was insufficient
concerning the 20 bicycles and the wedding expenses. In response, Plaintiff
stated:
In all fairness, I didn’t sue him for the bicycles or whatever went on at the wedding or afterwards. I sued him because of what I feel in my heart. What he did to me was unnecessary. It took away my choice to decide whether or not I wanted to marry a man with diabetes. And if he had told me, if I loved him enough, I would have married him regardless, but that choice was taken away from me because he lied about being a diabetic. So that’s why I sued him for $10,000.
The trial court asked her, “So you’re not asking for anything back on
the bikes or the wedding?” Plaintiff responded, “I sued him for that reason.”
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant was represented by counsel. The trial
court explained to Plaintiff that she needed to provide proof of the debts for
which she was claiming damages and that testimony alone that the debts
existed was not enough for it to rule in her favor. It explained to Defendant
that if he objected to any of these claims for damages or could show that he
had reimbursed her, he, too, would have to provide proof to the court that the 3 money was not owed. It also indicated to Plaintiff that if she was claiming
damages for infliction of emotional abuse, she would have to provide proof
of the value of her claim, which could be through testimony of counselors or
psychologists. It informed Plaintiff and Defendant that it would hold
another day open for further evidence to allow them to gather financial
information, credit card statements, etc., to prove their respective cases.
A few days later, the parties returned to court, whereupon Plaintiff
stated that she was unable to obtain the necessary proof because Wal-Mart
could not provide her with the information she needed for another nine days.
She gave the court the information she had, which the court did not find
helpful. Her credit card receipt reflected purchases from Wal-Mart, but did
not indicate the exact items. The trial court allowed her to supplement the
record in March 2019 with the proof she later obtained from other sources.
On April 11, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,500 plus court costs and
judicial interest from the date of demand. No reasons for judgment were
rendered orally or in writing, leaving it unclear as to why, or on which basis,
it awarded judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant appeals the judgment of
the trial court.
DISCUSSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered March 4, 2020. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 53,333-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
BOBBIE J. CLAY Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
JAMES EARL SUTTON Defendant-Appellant
Appealed from the Monroe City Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2019CV00032
Honorable Jefferson B. Joyce, Judge
JAMES EARL SUTTON In Proper Person, Appellant
BOBBIE J. CLAY In Proper Person, Appellee
Before PITMAN, GARRETT, and COX, JJ. PITMAN, J.
Defendant James Earl Sutton appeals the judgment of the trial court
rendered in favor of his ex-wife, Plaintiff Bobbie J. Clay, in the amount of
$3,500, which was awarded to her after she filed a suit for “extreme mental
and emotional abuse.” For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial
court is reversed.
FACTS
Plaintiff filed suit in proper person seeking $10,000 against Defendant
and alleged that the suit sought damages for extreme mental and emotional
abuse by her former spouse. A trial was held on February 19, 2019, and
resumed February 21, 2019. The following evidence was adduced.
Plaintiff and Defendant were married to each other in October 2017
and divorced in November 2018. According to Plaintiff, the marriage was
contentious from the very beginning. After the ceremony, Defendant left his
new bride, Plaintiff, at the church and drove away with his ex-wife, their
children and grandchildren in his truck with “just married” written on it.
Plaintiff went home alone. Plaintiff’s one stipulation prior to marriage to
Defendant was that he not be diabetic, because she wanted an intimate
relationship with him, and her former partner had been diabetic and unable
to perform. Apparently, Defendant lied to Plaintiff and claimed his health
was good, but he had been told he was “pre-diabetic.” Plaintiff claimed that
the marriage was not consummated and that Defendant refused to take
medication prescribed by the doctor. Defendant disputed Plaintiff’s version
of these and other facts.
According to Plaintiff, in addition to lying about being diabetic,
Defendant did many things to irritate Plaintiff, including taking his ex-wife and their children to church every Sunday—the same church where Plaintiff
sang in the choir. This was extremely humiliating to Plaintiff because
Defendant sat in church with his ex-wife and children while she was singing,
and everyone at their church witnessed this outlandish behavior and
wondered about what type of wife she was being to him. Also, over
Plaintiff’s objections, Defendant allowed his ex-wife to ride in the front seat
of the truck to church. Plaintiff asked that the ex-wife be relegated to ride in
the back seat, but the ex-wife refused to ride there, and Defendant did not
insist that she do so. Defendant claims he discussed this with Plaintiff and
that Plaintiff accepted the situation with his ex-wife.
Plaintiff incurred many expenses while married to Defendant. She
began insuring him on her automobile policy to save him money. In an
attempt to fit in with her new husband’s family, she purchased 20 bicycles
for his grandchildren. Defendant claimed he told her not to purchase the
bikes, as did his daughter and other family members.
Plaintiff soon tired of the relationship, out of which she was getting
nothing except aggravation and humiliation, so after 4 1/2 months of
marriage, she gathered Defendant’s clothes and other belongings and made
him leave the matrimonial domicile. The couple divorced a year and a
month after they married. Plaintiff was represented, pro bono, by a friend.
After the facts of the unhappiness in the marriage were established
and Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the debts she incurred as a result of the
marriage were heard, the trial court attempted to establish the basis for
Plaintiff’s cause of action.
2 The trial court asked:
So, these things like that you—the money you expended out for him and everything, why didn’t you raise these in the divorce to say, “I should be owed these, you know, the 20 bikes, or the— this was the insurance and all that.” These, you know—when you’re separating your community property, or you’re separating up your divorce, you say these are those things.
Plaintiff responded by stating that her attorney advised her that if
property had to be settled, the action would cost her more than she could
afford, so she decided to just get divorced. She stated she would not have
sued Defendant in the action at bar except for the amount of debt she had as
a result of her marriage to him.
The trial court, without noting that her cause of action was infliction
of emotional abuse, told Plaintiff that the proof of her claim was insufficient
concerning the 20 bicycles and the wedding expenses. In response, Plaintiff
stated:
In all fairness, I didn’t sue him for the bicycles or whatever went on at the wedding or afterwards. I sued him because of what I feel in my heart. What he did to me was unnecessary. It took away my choice to decide whether or not I wanted to marry a man with diabetes. And if he had told me, if I loved him enough, I would have married him regardless, but that choice was taken away from me because he lied about being a diabetic. So that’s why I sued him for $10,000.
The trial court asked her, “So you’re not asking for anything back on
the bikes or the wedding?” Plaintiff responded, “I sued him for that reason.”
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant was represented by counsel. The trial
court explained to Plaintiff that she needed to provide proof of the debts for
which she was claiming damages and that testimony alone that the debts
existed was not enough for it to rule in her favor. It explained to Defendant
that if he objected to any of these claims for damages or could show that he
had reimbursed her, he, too, would have to provide proof to the court that the 3 money was not owed. It also indicated to Plaintiff that if she was claiming
damages for infliction of emotional abuse, she would have to provide proof
of the value of her claim, which could be through testimony of counselors or
psychologists. It informed Plaintiff and Defendant that it would hold
another day open for further evidence to allow them to gather financial
information, credit card statements, etc., to prove their respective cases.
A few days later, the parties returned to court, whereupon Plaintiff
stated that she was unable to obtain the necessary proof because Wal-Mart
could not provide her with the information she needed for another nine days.
She gave the court the information she had, which the court did not find
helpful. Her credit card receipt reflected purchases from Wal-Mart, but did
not indicate the exact items. The trial court allowed her to supplement the
record in March 2019 with the proof she later obtained from other sources.
On April 11, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,500 plus court costs and
judicial interest from the date of demand. No reasons for judgment were
rendered orally or in writing, leaving it unclear as to why, or on which basis,
it awarded judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant appeals the judgment of
the trial court.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed the judgment simply because he did not think it
should have been rendered against him.
In White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d 1205 (La. 1991), the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress was adopted as a viable cause of
action. The court stated that one, who by extreme and outrageous conduct
intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, is subject to 4 liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results
from it, for such bodily harm. Id. The conduct must be so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community. Id. In order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the conduct of the defendant was
extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the
plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired to inflict severe
emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or
substantially certain to result from his conduct. Id.
In Covington v. Howard, 49,135 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/13/14), 146 So. 3d
933, writ denied, 14-1927 (La. 11/21/14), 160 So. 3d 973, this court noted
that although negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) is not an
independent tort like battery, trespass or intentional infliction of emotional
distress, it is now well established in Louisiana jurisprudence that a claim for
NIED unaccompanied by physical injury is viable under La. C.C. art. 2315,
which provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]very act whatever of man that
causes damages to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair
it.” Id. Courts utilize a duty-risk analysis to assist in determining whether
one may recover under La. C.C. art. 2315. Id. For liability to attach, a
plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to
conform his or her conduct to a specific standard of care (the duty element);
(2) the defendant failed to conform his or her conduct to the appropriate
standard (the breach of duty element); (3) the defendant’s substandard
conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact
element); (4) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the 5 plaintiff’s injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and
(5) actual damages (the damages element). Id. A negative answer to any of
those inquiries results in a determination of no liability. Id.
In the case at bar, Plaintiff failed to prove the elements necessary to
recover for the tort of either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional
distress. Plaintiff testified that she was humiliated by Defendant’s actions in
leaving the church after their wedding with his ex-wife and seriously
disturbed by other behavior, including the falsehood that he did not suffer
from diabetes; however, she failed to prove that she has sought any
treatment for the emotional damages she allegedly suffered. Further, she did
not prove that Defendant desired to inflict severe emotional distress or knew
that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to
result from his conduct.
The evidence Plaintiff presented to the trial court addressed only
issues which were more properly settled in the couple’s divorce suit.
Plaintiff produced no evidence substantiating her cause of action for
infliction of emotional distress; thus, the judgment of the trial court must be
reversed.
La. C.C.P. art. 2164 concerns the scope of the appeal and the award of
damages and the taxation of costs in the lower court and this court and states
that this court may make any such decision that it considers equitable.
Defendant was allowed to file this appeal in forma pauperis and was
allowed to proceed without payment. For this reason, it would be
inequitable to assess the costs of the appeal against Plaintiff now that the
judgment in her favor is being reversed. Therefore, we choose to forgo the
assessment of costs against her. 6 CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment in the amount of $3,500
rendered in favor of Plaintiff Bobbie J. Clay and against Defendant James
Earl Sutton is hereby reversed. Because this appeal was filed in forma
pauperis, the costs of the appeal will not be assessed to either party.