Skip to main content

Nunn v. Allen

N.C. Ct. App.December 17, 2002No. COA01-1570Cited 28 times
Plaintiff WinAllen Brothers Timber Company$100,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Martin, Eagles, Thomas
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Jury found for plaintiff on alienation of affection and criminal conversation claims, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Appellate court affirmed the verdict and judgment.

Excerpt

1. Alienation of Affections; Criminal Conversation — common law tort — recognized by North Carolina Supreme Court The Court of Appeals has no authority to abolish the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation even though defendant contends the torts are archaic, antiquated, and offensive to the concept of feminine equality, because: (1) neither tort is a statutory creation, and both emanate from the common law and have been recognized by our Supreme Court; and (2) the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court. 2. Evidence — exclusion of statements made to defendant by plaintiff's wife — harmless error The trial court did not err in an alienation of affections and criminal conversation case by excluding testimony concerning statements made to defendant by plaintiff's wife concerning her relationship with plaintiff, because some of the excluded evidence was later admitted through the testimony of plaintiff's wife, rendering harmless its exclusion during defendant's testimony, and defendant made no offer of proof as to the other testimony. 3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues — failure to cite authority — general objections — failure to show prejudice Although defendant contends the trial court erred in an alienation of affections and criminal conversation case by permitting plaintiff to cross-examine defendant concerning property owned by defendant's father and to cross-examine plaintiff's wife concerning the pendency of charges against her for embezzlement from her place of employment, this assignment of error is dismissed because: (1) defendant did not preserve this issue for appeal by failing to cite any authority and by interposing only general objections at trial; and (2) defendant has neither argued nor demonstrated that he was prejudiced b

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a personal dispute between spouses where one spouse sued another person (who worked at Allen Brothers Timber Company) for allegedly breaking up their marriage. The plaintiff claimed the defendant had an affair with their spouse and intentionally destroyed their marriage. Under North Carolina law, people can still sue for "alienation of affection" (convincing someone's spouse to leave them) and "criminal conversation" (having an affair with someone's married spouse). **What the Court Decided:** A jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded $100,000 total - $50,000 for the emotional harm caused and $50,000 as punishment. The defendant appealed, arguing these old laws should no longer exist, but the appeals court disagreed and upheld the full award. The court ruled that only the state legislature, not judges, can eliminate these longstanding legal claims. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that workplace relationships can have serious legal consequences beyond just job-related issues. Employees who get romantically involved with married coworkers could face expensive lawsuits from the spouse, even if their employer doesn't take disciplinary action. Workers should understand that personal relationships at work might expose them to significant financial liability under state laws that vary widely across the country.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.