Phillips vs Irons Digest
Short Description
Constitutional Law...
Description
Phillips vs. Irons
Facts On Jan 1999, plaintiff, Richard Phillips and the defendant, Sharon Irons began dating. At the time, the defendant informed Phillips that she was married a year ago and claimed that she has been divorced from her husband, Dr. Adebowale Adeleye. Time passed and Phillips and Irons were engaged to be married. The couple talked about the possibility of having children after getting married. Plaintiff informed the defendant that he did not wish to have children, at least not until they are married, and intended that he would use a condom whenever they engage in sex. The defendant understood and agreed. During the course of their relationship, the couples engaged in oral sex 3 times, with 2 of those instances having occurred on the same date. They never engaged in vaginal intercourse because of the defendant’s menses. Around Feb 19 and/or March 19 of 1999, Irons engaged in oral sex with Phillips. She used the semen that hadn’t been discarded to artificially inseminate herself without the plaintiff’s knowledge. On May 1999, the defendant confessed to Phillips that she is still married to her former husband,. She told him that she planned to get a divorce, and showed him a “petition for dissolution of marriage” which was filed on May 20, 1999. In the petition, the defendant swore that she was not pregnant. The couple ended their relationship when Phillips learned that his fiancée was still married to her husband on May 1999. In November 21, 2000, Irons filed a “ Petition to Establish Paternity and Other Relief” against plaintiff, claiming she and plaintiff had a sexual relationship which gave birth to Serena on December 1, 1999, where DNA tests have confirmed that Phillips is the biological father of Iron’s daughter. Phillips asserted that he had no knowledge of Iron’s pregnancy nor the birth of the child until receiving the defendant’s petition to establish paternity. He also claimed that Iron’s continued to live with his Adeleye during her pregnancy. Adeleye and the public were led to believe that Serena is Adeleye’s daughter because of the presence of Adeleye’s name on Serena’s birth certificate. Even Serena, doesn’t know that Phillips is her biological father. Phillips filed a complaint before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against defendant seeking damages for: intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conversion. At the initial filing of the complaint, the plaintiff’s paternity hasn’t been established. FTA : FN1. At the time this case was before the circuit court, and as of the filing of plaintiff's original brief, plaintiff's paternity had not been established. Although the parties agree that plaintiff is Serena's biological father, no documentation is provided in the record on
appeal. *2 Following the filing of plaintiff's initial complaint, defendant successfully moved to dismiss under section 2615 . Plaintiff ultimately filed a third amended complaint, which was dismissed with prejudice, the circuit court finding each count “continues to lack sufficient facts” necessary to state a cause of action. Plaintiff timely appeals.
Issues: Whether or not the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress; Whether or not the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for fraudulent misrepresentation; Whether or not the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for conversion.
Held: Yes. the circuit court erred in dismissing count plaintiff’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress. No. The circuit court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. No. The circuit court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim for conversion. Ratio for issue 1: Three elements are needed to state a cause of action for IIED: (1) the conduct involved must be truly extreme and outrageous (2) the actor must either intend that his or her conduct inflict severe emotional distress, or know that there is at least a high probability that it will cause severe emotional distress and (3) the conduct must, in fact, cause severe emotional distress. An action can be considered “outrageous and extreme” if the nature of the conduct goes beyond the possible bounds of decency and is considered intolerable in a civilized community. In the case at bar, defendant’s actions can be considered “extreme and outrageous” when she deliberately misled the plaintiff that she didn’t want to bear children until after marriage, but deceitfully engaged in sexual acts which no one would would expect could result in pregnancy, and using the plaintiff’s sperm in unorthodox, and unexpected manner yielding extreme consequences. It must also be established that actor must intend that his/her actions inflict severe emotional distress, or at least know that there is a high probability that it will cause
severe emotional distress. FTA: According to plaintiff, defendant was aware of his desire to have children only after marriage. Further, plaintiff believed defendant could not become pregnant, not only due to the nature of the sexual acts, but because he believed she was infertile at the time as a result of her menstrual cycle. Months later, however, defendant informed plaintiff he fathered her child. From these facts, if proved, it may be inferred reasonably that defendant knew manipulating plaintiff into unwittingly conceiving a child out of wedlock would inflict severe emotional distress Lastly, it must be determined whether the consequence of the actor’s conduct on the acted upon, can be considered severe. The degree of emotional distress depends on its intensity and duration. FTA: In this case, plaintiff claims he “often finds himself nauseated and unable to eat, especially whenas a family practitionerhe treats small children who are the same age as the child he allegedly fathered.” As plaintiff's claim involves a physically and psychologically manipulated nonconsensual pregnancy, it is cognizable that the intensity of his emotional distress is great and its duration longlasting. Ratio for issue 2: The tort of fraudulent misrepresentation cannot be applied in the case at bar since historically, it has been limited to cases involving financial transactions where plaintiff suffered monetary harm. It is an economic tort under which one may recover only monetary damages. Therefore, plaintiff may not recover on allegations of physical and emotional distress. Elements of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation: •a false statement of material fact; •known or believed to be false by the party making it; •intent to induce plaintiff to act •action by plaintiff in justifiable reliance on the truth of the statement • damage to plaintiff resulting from such reliance. Ratio for issue 3: Conversion is an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his property permanently or for an indefinite time. It must be shown that the money claimed, or its equivalent, at all times belonged to plaintiff and that defendant converted it to his own use. The elements of a claim for conversion are: (1) plaintiff's right in the property; (2) plaintiff's right to immediate, absolute, and unconditional possession of the property; (3) defendant's
unauthorized and wrongful assumption of control, dominion, or ownership over the property; and (4) plaintiff's demand for possession. The plaintiff cannot show “right to immediate, absolute, and unconditional possession” of his sperm. Plaintiff presumably intended, and he does not claim otherwise, that defendant discard his semen, not return it to him. FTA: “The essence of conversion is the wrongful deprivation of one who has a right to the immediate possession of the object unlawfully held.” note: FTA means “from the article”. The statement following it has been explicitly copied verbatim from the original document
View more...
Comments