## Facts

- Jerry Bryant O’Neil, a non-Catholic, married Pauline Urban in 1965; they had five children.
- Pauline’s mother and other relatives became involved with a traditionalist Catholic sect led by Francis K. Schuckardt and associated individuals and entities.
- Jerry presented evidence that sect members pressured Pauline to view the marriage as invalid, separate from Jerry, and relocate with the children to sect-controlled housing.
- Jerry alleged defendants obstructed his access to Pauline and the children and interfered with the family’s domestic life.
- After the couple divorced, the decree included a restraint against Pauline imposing religious beliefs on the children; Jerry alleged sect members continued religious indoctrination despite knowledge of the decree.
- Jerry and the children sued defendants for (1) alienation of affections and (2) invasion of privacy based on interference with family integrity and intrusions into the family’s seclusion.
- A jury returned a $1 million verdict for Jerry and the children; the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Idaho should continue to recognize the tort of alienation of affections, and if so, whether the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
2. Whether plaintiffs stated and proved a viable invasion-of-privacy claim (including “domestic privacy”/intrusion upon seclusion) based on alleged coercive interference with the family by religious actors.
3. Whether the First Amendment barred application of generally applicable tort principles to defendants’ alleged conduct.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court abolished the tort of alienation of affections in Idaho and affirmed JNOV as to that claim.
- The Court held that invasion of privacy, including intrusion upon the seclusion of the family’s domestic life (“invasion of domestic privacy”), remained a viable cause of action.
- The Court concluded the trial court erred in granting JNOV on the invasion-of-privacy claims because the evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict, could support liability.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Idaho no longer recognizes alienation of affections; policy concerns include speculative causation, vindictive use, and invasive litigation into marital intimacy.
- Invasion of privacy includes liability for unreasonable intrusion upon another’s seclusion or private affairs, and this may encompass coercive intrusion into the integrity and seclusion of a family unit.
- Religious belief and persuasion are protected, but the First Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from generally applicable tort law where conduct is alleged to be coercive, intrusive, or to induce violation of civil court orders.
- On JNOV review, the evidence must be assessed in the light most favorable to the verdict; if reasonable jurors could find an unreasonable intrusion, the verdict cannot be displaced as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court eliminated alienation of affections as a cause of action in Idaho but preserved and applied invasion-of-privacy doctrine to allow recovery where religious actors allegedly used coercive and intrusive conduct to disrupt and control a family’s domestic life, including conduct conflicting with a divorce decree’s restrictions.


O’Neil v. Schuckardt, 733 P.2d 693 (Idaho 1986)