After 32 years of marriage,
William filed for divorce from his wife Nancy, alleging adultery. The
divorce was not amicable.
Nancy filed multiple criminal
complaints against William claiming that he was stalking and harassing
her.
William was arrested several
times, although all the charges against him were ultimately dismissed.
William filed a tort action
against Nancy, claiming malicious prosecution.
William argued that Nancy
fabricated the claims in retaliation for his initiation of the divorce.
Nancy made a motion to dismiss
the tort claim. She argued that the common-law doctrine of interspousal
tort immunity meant that William could
not sue her.
The Court granted Nancy's
motion to dismiss. William appealed.
William argued that under Lusby
v. Lusby (390 A.2d 77 (1978)), interspousal
immunity was not a defense where conduct constituting the tort
was 'outrageous.'
The Intermediate Appellate
Court affirmed. William appealed.
The Appellate Court agreed
that Lusby was controlling, but
felt that Nancy's conduct fell short of being 'outrageous.'
The Maryland Supreme Court
reversed and rejected the motion to dismiss.
The Maryland Supreme Court
decided to throw out the entire concept of interspousal immunity.
The Court noted that the
common-law concept dated back to when husband and wife were considered
one person under the law, and you can't sue yourself.
In addition, it can disrupt
the family unit. The courts are traditionally loathe to do things that
disrupt families.
In addition, allowing one
spouse to sue another spouse (and then collect from that spouse's
insurance policy), encourages fraud.
The Court found that the
idea was antiquated and had no rational underpinnings in modern tort law.
In addition, the Court noted that many other jurisdictions had already
moved away from the doctrine.
