## Facts

- Lynn Feltmeier and Robert Feltmeier married in 1986 and divorced in 1997 under a judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement.
- Lynn alleged Robert engaged in an 11-year course of physical and psychological abuse, including verbal and physical assaults, stalking, interference with her career, and isolating control that prevented her from seeking help.
- Lynn alleged the conduct caused severe emotional distress, including depression, fear, and diminished self-esteem.
- On August 25, 1999, Lynn sued Robert for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) based on the alleged continuing pattern of abuse.
- Robert moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and as time-barred under the two-year limitations period; he later argued the marital settlement agreement released the claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded IIED based on an extended pattern of spousal domestic abuse.
2. Whether IIED allegations based on conduct before August 25, 1997 were barred by the two-year statute of limitations or saved by the continuing tort doctrine.
3. Whether the marital settlement agreement released Lynn’s IIED claim.
4. Whether interspousal immunity barred suit for alleged conduct occurring before January 1, 1988.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment allowing the action to proceed.
- The complaint stated an IIED claim by alleging extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or high probability of causing distress, and severe emotional distress.
- The alleged abuse was treated as a continuing tort; limitations accrued at the last injurious act or when the wrongful conduct ceased, so earlier acts were not time-barred if the pattern continued into the limitations period.
- The marital settlement agreement did not clearly release or waive the IIED claim.
- Interspousal immunity did not bar the action for the alleged pre-1988 intentional conduct.

## Legal Principles

- IIED requires: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause severe emotional distress or knowledge of a high probability of doing so, and (3) resulting severe emotional distress.
- Public policy favoring marital harmony does not create a categorical bar to tort claims between spouses, particularly for intentional abuse.
- Under the continuing tort doctrine, when injury results from a continuing course of wrongful conduct, the limitations period begins at the last injury or when the conduct ends, permitting suit for the entire course if timely filed from that endpoint.
- A settlement release is construed according to the parties’ intent; waiver of significant tort claims must be expressed with sufficient clarity and is not inferred from general language.
- Interspousal immunity does not protect a spouse from liability for intentional torts committed during marriage.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse may pursue an IIED claim based on a sustained pattern of domestic abuse, that such allegations may constitute a continuing tort delaying accrual of limitations until the last injurious act, and that neither general divorce-settlement language nor interspousal immunity barred the claim on the pleaded facts.


Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263, 798 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2003)