## Facts

- Jerry W. Cedar and Leslie Cedar married in 2000 and had one child.
- The marriage experienced prior difficulties, including Leslie’s online relationship in 2007; the couple attended counseling afterward.
- In 2014, the Cedars moved to Frederick, South Dakota.
- In April 2015, Leslie began working at the Titan Bar, a restaurant owned by Bruce Johnson; Jerry sometimes worked there as an evening cook.
- Around May 2015, Johnson’s wife died of cancer. Afterward, Johnson began frequent non-work contact with Leslie, including repeated texting, spending time with her, and bringing her small gifts (e.g., coffee and food).
- Johnson and Leslie’s relationship became romantic in late September 2015. Johnson testified he was initially hesitant but became more comfortable after Leslie told him her marriage was over.
- Leslie disclosed the relationship to Jerry in November 2015 and told him Johnson had “worked his charm on her.”
- Jerry asked Leslie to end the relationship and work on their marriage, but Leslie moved in with Johnson.
- Jerry and Leslie divorced in 2016, and Jerry sued Johnson for alienation of affections.
- At trial, Jerry testified that before the affair, he and Leslie were loving and intimate. He pointed to Leslie’s August 2015 Facebook post celebrating their fifteenth wedding anniversary as evidence of continuing affection.
- Jerry also testified he missed Leslie’s love and companionship and regretted raising their son in a broken home.
- Leslie testified she had not felt affection for Jerry since at least 2011 and admitted to a brief sexual relationship with another man in September 2015; Jerry disputed that account.
- After Jerry’s case-in-chief, Johnson moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The circuit court granted JMOL on the element of damages, concluding Jerry had not presented sufficient evidence of the amount of damages, and dismissed the case.
- Jerry appealed. Johnson filed a notice of review, arguing he was entitled to JMOL on specific intent and causation.

## Issues

1. Whether Jerry presented sufficient evidence of damages to submit the damages element of alienation of affections to a jury.
2. Whether Johnson was entitled to JMOL because the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find Johnson acted with specific intent to alienate Leslie’s affections.
3. Whether Johnson was entitled to JMOL because the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find Johnson’s conduct caused (was a controlling cause of) the loss of Leslie’s affections.

## Decision

- Reversed the circuit court’s JMOL dismissal on damages, holding the evidence was sufficient for the jury to assess non-economic damages.
- Affirmed the circuit court’s denial of JMOL on specific intent and causation, holding those issues presented jury questions on this record.
- Remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- To prove alienation of affections in South Dakota, a plaintiff must show wrongful conduct by the defendant, loss of spousal affection/consortium, and a causal connection between the conduct and the loss; the defendant’s conduct must be done with specific intent to alienate one spouse’s affections from the other.
- On review of JMOL, courts view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and do not weigh credibility; JMOL is proper only when no reasonable jury could find for that party.
- Damages for alienation of affections are commonly non-economic (e.g., loss of love, society, companionship, and mental suffering) and do not require proof of a precise dollar amount; testimony describing the relationship and the loss may be enough to send damages to the jury.
- Specific intent and causation may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including pursuit of a relationship with a married person and conduct that draws the spouse away (such as sustained attention, gifts, and persistent contact).
- Conflicting evidence about the state of the marriage and when affection was lost generally creates questions for the jury rather than grounds for JMOL.

## Conclusion

The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred by removing the damages element from the jury after Jerry Cedar presented testimony about the loss of Leslie’s love and companionship and the effect on their family; the Court also held that disputed evidence about Johnson’s intent and whether his conduct caused the loss of affection required jury resolution, so it reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for trial.


Cedar v. Johnson, 921 N.W.2d 178 (2018)