Return to sender, reverse and render

Arguably the most famous person ever born in Tupelo, Mississippi had a little hit back in 1962 titled “Return to Sender”

I gave a letter to the postman,
He put it his sack.
Bright in early next morning,
He brought my letter back.

She wrote upon it:
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such zone.

Hopefully, Elvis wasn’t singing about sending love letters to a married person as was central to Nordness v. Faucheaux case handed down today by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Phillip and Paige Faucheux were a military couple who moved frequently, but lived in Mississippi during the time relevant to the case.  While Phillip was a resident of Mississippi he began a relationship with Francesca Nordness, a resident of Louisiana.  According to the opinion:

Phillip and Francesca continued the affair while Phillip trained in south Louisiana. Phillip often would drive Francesca around in his Mazda pick-up truck with Louisiana license plates. Francesca never visited Phillip in Mississippi, and Phillip never told Francesca that he lived in Mississippi. Instead, he misled her into believing he actually lived in Memphis. His cell phone had a “901” area code—the area code for the Memphis area—and he sent her packages with a Memphis return address.

and

Francesca and Phillip continued to rendezvous at locations across the country, including Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado—but never Mississippi. And although the two exchanged e-mails, phone calls, and text messages, Francesca never knowingly communicated with Phillip while he was in Mississippi. Phillip also sent Francesca several FedEx packages during this time, but according to Phillip’s uncontroverted testimony, he always used a Memphis return address.

Paige finally decided enough was enough and divorced Phillip.  Shortly thereafter, Paige brought suit in Mississippi against Francesca for alienation of affection and a number of related torts.  Francesca filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction claiming in essence “I wasn’t in Mississippi and didn’t do anything in Mississippi.”  The trial court denied the motion and the parties ended up before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Several recent alienation of affection cases before the Court have centered on claims by defendants of insufficient contact with Mississippi to support personal jurisdiction.  To the best of my recollection, all of those challenges have failed until today.

In Miller v. Provident Adver. & Mktg., 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 339, 24-25 (Miss. Ct. App. June 17, 2014) involving pro golfer John Daly, the Court of Appeals found:

[T]he alleged sexual activity between Cladakis and Daly within the state of Mississippi, which contributed to the breakup of Daly’s marriage with Miller, constituted a tort committed, at least in part, within this state. For whatever reason Cladakis and Daly chose Mississippi for the site of their liaisons, this Court finds that decision constituted a purposeful availment to activities within the state for purposes of personal jurisdiction.

In Knight v. Woodfield, 50 So. 3d 995 (Miss. 2011) the court found sufficient contacts where “Knight admitted he was aware that Dakka and Woodfield were married and that Dakka lived with Woodfield in Mississippi.”

In contrast to Miller and Knight, the Court in this case could find no purposeful contact by Francesca with the State of Mississippi.

The record includes no evidence that Francesca created sufficient purposeful minimum contacts with Mississippi by having an affair with a man she did not know lived in Mississippi. Her calls and text messages to Phillip’s Memphis telephone number do not establish minimum contacts in Mississippi. A nonresident defendant must knowingly and purposefully establish minimum contacts with the forum state—in this case, Mississippi—such that the nonresident reasonably can expect to be haled into court in that state.

Nordess, at paragraph 45.  The end result from the Court was to reverse and render.

*Short practice tip – If you plan on filing an alienation of affection case in Mississippi against a non-resident of Mississippi, find some knowing contact by the paramour with the State of Mississippi.  That contact could be:

  • directing emails, letters, texts messages or gifts to the married person in the State of Mississippi
  • knowledge by the paramour that the married person is a Mississippi resident
  • presence of the non-resident paramour in the State of Mississippi to engage in a sexual act with the married person or further the illicit affair

If you can’t prove these minimum contacts your lawsuit, like the King’s letter, will be returned to sender.

Advertisements

About randywallace
I am a husband, father, attorney, outdoorsman and cook.

2 Responses to Return to sender, reverse and render

  1. rhondalhunt says:

    My husband and I separated a little over a year ago, but continued to see each other on a regular basis, and I stayed with him at his apartment many times. He was also still paying the bills because I had no job. He would drive to our old home and pick me up and take me to his place to stay. When he met another woman 8 months after our initial separation, right after I had started a new job, he ceased all financial support and informed me via facebook message that he was no longer going to see me and was going to file for divorce. He also cut off all financial support and stopped his paycheck from being direct deposited to our joint account. We have not filed for divorce yet, but he plans to very soon. My question is this: Can I sue for alienation of affection, and if so do I have to do this before we are divorced, or can I do this afterwards? He has hidden this woman’s identity from me (we live in separate cities), and I have absolutely no idea who she is. I do have written confirmation from him that he started seeing her and then decided to cut off all relations with me as a result. He is paying me absolutely no support or alimony. Our children are 23 and 25, and he says that he neither owes me anything after 30 years of marriage, and that he has no money to give.

    • randywallace says:

      It isn’t clear from your message where you live. Most states have abolished alienation of affection as a cause of action leaving only 7 or 8 states where alienation of affection is viable (including my home state of Mississippi). Regardless of whether or not you live in a state where alienation of affection is viable, go visit with a family lawyer in your area to discuss your options.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: