## Facts

- Jeffrey E. Tigges (husband) and Cathy J. Tigges (wife) were married in 1999; the relationship involved significant distrust, including earlier secret recording of communications.
- During the marriage, Jeffrey covertly installed video-recording equipment in the marital home to record Cathy without her knowledge.
- The equipment included a recorder hidden above a ceiling, a concealed camera in an alarm clock in a bedroom Cathy regularly used, and a motion-sensing device installed in the bed’s headboard.
- Cathy discovered the recording setup in August 2006 after seeing Jeffrey remove a cassette; she retained and restored the damaged tape with assistance.
- Cathy testified the recording showed only her “comings and goings” from the bedroom and contained nothing graphic or demeaning.
- Cathy claimed she felt violated and fearful that additional hidden cameras had been, or would be, placed in the home.
- In the dissolution proceeding, Cathy asserted a tort claim for invasion of privacy and sought money damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse may maintain an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim against the other spouse for secret videotaping in a bedroom within the marital home.
2. Whether the victim-spouse has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bedroom of a shared marital residence.
3. Whether the elements of intrusion upon seclusion are met when the recording captures only mundane activity and the claimed harm is primarily emotional distress.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment awarding money damages to Cathy.
- The court held that an invasion-of-privacy claim based on intrusion upon seclusion was legally viable on these facts.
- The court rejected the argument that shared occupancy of the marital home eliminates a spouse’s privacy interest in a bedroom used by that spouse.
- The court concluded the covert installation and use of video surveillance in the bedroom constituted a wrongful intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, into another’s solitude or private affairs, in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The tort focuses on the intrusive conduct and the privacy of the place or activity intruded upon; liability does not depend on whether the information obtained is embarrassing, sensational, or later publicized.
- A person may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy within the marital home, including in spaces associated with seclusion such as a bedroom, even as against a spouse.
- Emotional and psychological harm may support damages for intrusion upon seclusion, even where the recording depicts only ordinary activity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld damages for intrusion upon seclusion, holding that secretly videotaping a spouse in a bedroom of the marital home can be highly offensive and actionable because a spouse may reasonably expect privacy there, and the injury stems from the covert intrusion itself rather than the recorded content.


In re Marriage of Tigges, 758 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 2008)