## Facts

- A husband sued an alleged paramour of his wife for the common-law torts of criminal conversation and alienation of affections.
- The husband alleged the defendant’s adulterous relationship with the wife caused the breakdown of the marriage.
- The husband obtained a trial judgment in his favor on both claims.
- The defendant appealed, urging the court to abolish the causes of action, and to decide whether any change should apply retroactively or prospectively.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa should judicially abolish the common-law tort of criminal conversation.
2. Whether Iowa should judicially abolish the common-law tort of alienation of affections.
3. If either tort is abolished or modified, whether the change should apply retroactively or prospectively.

## Decision

- The court held it has inherent authority to change or abrogate common-law rules when conditions warrant, while giving weight to stare decisis and reliance interests.
- The court prospectively abolished the tort of criminal conversation for conduct occurring after January 1, 1978.
- The court declined to abolish the tort of alienation of affections and retained it as a viable cause of action.
- Because the conduct at issue predated the effective date for abolition of criminal conversation, the plaintiff’s judgment was not disturbed.
- The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.

## Legal Principles

- A state supreme court may modify or abrogate common-law doctrines when contemporary conditions and concepts of justice justify change.
- Stare decisis limits abrupt abandonment of long-recognized common-law rules; courts weigh the reasons for the rule against current policy considerations.
- When a court changes common law in a way that would upset settled expectations, it may limit the change to prospective application to avoid unfairness.
- Criminal conversation, as a strict-liability adultery-based action historically tied to proprietary conceptions of marriage, may be eliminated as inconsistent with modern policy, especially where it is largely punitive and does not require proof of actual marital harm.
- Alienation of affections remains distinct because it requires proof of a marital relationship with affection, intentional and wrongful interference by the defendant, causation, and resulting damage.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the plaintiff’s verdict and reshaped Iowa common law by abolishing criminal conversation only for post–January 1, 1978 conduct while preserving alienation of affections as a tort requiring intentional, wrongful interference with the marriage relationship.


Bearbower v. Merry, 266 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 1978)