Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

328 N.W.2d 497

Van Meter v. Van Meter

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 19, 1983

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1983-01-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[is] not required to identify a specific legal theory; it is sufficient if the prima facie elements of a claim are stated, and this statement is “fair notice” to the de-fendant_ Under such “notice pleading,” Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a), it is sufficient if the petition apprises a defendant of the incident giving rise to the claim and of the general nature of the action. Id. The petition here was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the facts out of which the claim arose and of the general nature of the action, i.e., a claim for negligent placement of the house. To require the plaintiffs to go further and identify the specific legal theory underlying the claim would be inconsistent with the notice pleading concept in rule 69(a), requiring only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Unertl v. Bezanson

“(1) Outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) The defendant’s intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) The plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) Actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Strauss v. Cilek

Relies on Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. · Giltner v. Stark · Fundermann v. Mickelson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-01-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2000

1 district · 17 state decisions

120198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LARSON, Justice.

¶1In this interlocutory appeal, the only issue is whether the district court erred in refusing to dismiss a claim alleging intentional infliction of physical and emotional distress caused by the defendant’s “seduction” of the plaintiff’s former husband, in view of our decision in Fundermann v. Michelson, 304 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1981) (abolishing the claim of alienation of affections). We affirm.

¶2Our “notice pleading” rule requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim”; it does not require pleading of facts. Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a). In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, therefore, we must conclude that no state of facts is conceivable under which the plaintiff might prove her right of recovery. Glass v. Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company, 314 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Iowa 1982).

¶3An alienation of affections claim required (1) wrongful conduct by the defendant, (2) loss of affection, and (3) a causal *498connection. See Giltner v. Stark, 219 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Iowa 1974). A claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the other hand, requires (1) “outrageous conduct” by the defendant; (2) with intent of causing distress or reckless disregard of the probability of causing it; (3) the plaintiff’s suffering of extreme distress; and (4) a causal connection. See Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company, 203 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1972); see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 at 71-72 (1965).

¶4The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and some of its policy considerations, are different from those in an alienation claim. We cannot conclude as a matter of law that no facts are conceivable under which a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be maintained merely because it, like alienation claims, arises out of a failed marital relationship. Whether such facts are present is more appropriately resolved upon presentation of evidence through summary judgment, see Lamantia v. Sojka, 298 N.W.2d 245, 247 (Iowa 1980); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1202 at 60 (1969), or by trial.

¶5AFFIRMED.

All Justices concur except LeGRAND, McCORMICK, UHLENHOPP, and HARRIS, JJ., who dissent.
/328/nw2d/497 · .json · Public domain