## Facts

- Moskin Stores, Inc. sought to collect an alleged debt from Nealus E. Norris using a collection agent.
- A female agent twice called Norris’s wife at her workplace, identified herself as “Doris,” claimed she had dated Norris, and asked to meet Norris alone, leaving a number for him to call.
- The agent called Norris’s sister-in-law, again as “Doris,” asking for Norris’s whereabouts and employment, stating she was “in trouble,” and suggesting Norris had claimed he was unmarried.
- Norris alleged the calls were intended to obtain his employment information and pressure payment by implying adultery or other sexual misconduct.
- Norris alleged the conduct caused humiliation, embarrassment, and marital discord.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a creditor’s agent used deceptive, sexually suggestive calls to the debtor’s relatives to pressure payment stated a claim for invasion of privacy.
2. Whether a separate claim for “intentional interference” with the plaintiff’s marital contract and marital relations was cognizable on these facts.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court held the invasion-of-privacy allegations stated a prima facie claim; sustaining the demurrer to that count was error.
- The court declined to recognize a distinct tort claim for intentional interference with marital relations as pled and upheld the demurrer to that count.
- The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on the invasion-of-privacy claim.

## Legal Principles

- A creditor may pursue collection, but only by reasonable means; debt collection does not eliminate a debtor’s privacy rights.
- “Mere efforts” to collect a debt are not actionable without additional intrusive conduct.
- Conduct may constitute an invasion of privacy when a jury could find it offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities and lacking a reasonable relation to legitimate collection objectives.
- In evaluating collection-related privacy claims, relevant considerations include harassment, humiliating publicity, and whether the tactic bears a reasonable nexus to collection.

## Conclusion

The court permitted an invasion-of-privacy claim to proceed where a creditor’s agent allegedly fabricated a romantic or sexual relationship to contact the debtor’s family and pressure payment, but rejected an attempt to plead a separate tort for interference with marital relations on the same facts.


Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 132 So. 2d 321 (Ala. 1961)