## Facts

- James J. Carrieri and Inga Carrieri married in 1953 and initially had a harmonious marriage.
- After moving near a church led by Arnold J. Bush, Inga became increasingly involved in church activities; Bush and church elders frequently transported her to functions.
- James stopped attending the church and objected that Bush and the elders were keeping Inga from her family.
- Evidence supported that Bush told James he was “full of the devil” and instructed Inga not to listen to her husband.
- James and Inga attempted reconciliation and agreed she would leave the church, but Bush allegedly told Inga she could not leave or she would “go to hell,” after which she resumed church involvement.
- Inga separated from James and left the marital home; elders allegedly refused to disclose her whereabouts and James overheard elders advising her to divorce him.
- Inga obtained a divorce; James sued Bush and the elders (and their spouses) for alienation of affections, alleging wrongful interference causing loss of consortium.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorably to the plaintiff, there was substantial evidence from which a jury could find wrongful, malicious interference and causation sufficient to submit an alienation of affections claim to the jury.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
- The court held that the plaintiff presented substantial evidence from which a jury could find wrongful interference with the marriage, malice (in the legal sense), and causation.
- The case was remanded for trial.

## Legal Principles

- On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (nonsuit/directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s case), the court must treat the plaintiff’s evidence as true, draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and interpret evidence most strongly against the moving defendant.
- Such a motion may be granted only when, as a matter of law, there is no substantial evidence supporting the nonmovant’s claim; the court may not weigh credibility or resolve competing inferences.
- In alienation of affections actions, whether conduct is wrongful, whether malice/intent exists, and whether the conduct caused loss of consortium are generally jury questions when the evidence supports differing inferences.
- A defendant’s characterization of conduct as religious counseling does not eliminate jury questions where the same conduct could reasonably be found to be intentional, wrongful interference with a marital relationship.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff’s evidence, if believed, could support findings that the pastor and elders intentionally undermined the husband’s relationship, pressured the wife to remain aligned with the church, concealed her whereabouts, and encouraged divorce, reasonable minds could differ on wrongdoing and causation; dismissal for insufficiency was therefore error and the claim had to be tried to a jury.


Carrieri v. Bush, 69 Wash. 2d 536, 419 P.2d 132 (Wash. 1966)