Jones v. Skelley
North Carolina Court of Appeals
673 S.E.2d 385 (2009)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Rebecca Jones (plaintiff) married Phil Jones in North Carolina in 1974. The Joneses moved to South Carolina in 1979, where they continually resided except that Phil lived in North Carolina for several months starting in the summer of 2003. After Rebecca and Phil divorced, Rebecca sued Susan Skelley (defendant), Phil’s paramour, in North Carolina state court for alienation of affection and criminal conversation. Skelley moved for summary judgment on the ground that South Carolina law applied, and South Carolina did not recognize the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation. Per Skelley, South Carolina law applied because virtually all her conduct that could have alienated Phil’s affection occurred in South Carolina, with only a minimal amount occurring in North Carolina. Skelley further claimed that although she had sex with Phil in North Carolina in June 2004, Phil and Rebecca were separated at the time (albeit without a separation agreement), and neither Phil nor Rebecca lived in North Carolina, leaving North Carolina with no interest in Phil’s marital fidelity. The trial court granted summary judgment to Skelley. Rebecca appealed, arguing that the summary-judgment record established that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Skelley engaged in alienation of affection in North Carolina and that Rebecca, not Skelley, was entitled to summary judgment with respect to criminal conversation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.