## Facts

- Lorraine Parker sued Silvia Gould Thomson Parker (later Silvia Gould Hoefer) for alienation of affections by enticement and for criminal conversation with Lorraine’s husband, Robert Parker.
- Lorraine and Robert Parker married in 1933 and lived abroad for substantial periods until returning to the United States during World War II.
- In 1944 the Parkers moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where Robert became acquainted with the defendant through a mutual friend.
- In early 1945 Robert left the marital home and lived in a series of Cincinnati hotels; after a brief return, he left permanently.
- Lorraine obtained an Ohio divorce in April 1946; Robert married the defendant in May 1946; the defendant later divorced Robert in 1949.
- At trial, Lorraine and other witnesses described changes in Robert’s behavior and the deterioration of the marriage after his involvement with other women, including the defendant, and offered circumstantial proof of adultery and interference with the marriage.
- The jury returned a verdict for Lorraine awarding compensatory damages and exemplary (punitive) damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony characterized as opinion or conclusion concerning marital relations, the husband’s affections, and the defendant’s involvement.
2. Whether the scope of evidence admitted to prove alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and resulting damages was improper.
3. Whether alleged misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel or the trial court’s management of the case created reversible prejudice.
4. Whether the evidence and jury instructions supported an award of exemplary damages, including consideration of the defendant’s property.
5. Whether reconciliation efforts or temporary resumption of cohabitation barred or limited recovery for earlier alienation and criminal conversation.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held that admission of the challenged testimony, including testimony containing some opinion-like characterizations, was within the trial court’s discretion and did not warrant reversal.
- The court found no prejudicial error arising from counsel’s conduct, references to the defendant’s name change, or the trial court’s handling of objections and argument.
- The court upheld exemplary damages, concluding the evidence permitted a finding of malicious conduct and allowed consideration of the defendant’s financial means.
- The court held that reconciliation did not bar the causes of action; at most it could bear on damages.

## Legal Principles

- In alienation of affections and criminal conversation actions, relevant circumstantial evidence concerning marital relations, observed conduct, and the effect of third-party interference is broadly admissible, and evidentiary rulings are largely committed to trial-court discretion absent prejudice.
- Testimony that necessarily includes some inference about affection, attitudes, or relational changes is not automatically excluded as improper opinion when it describes observed marital conduct and is tied to disputed issues.
- Exemplary damages may be awarded upon proof of malicious or particularly wrongful interference, and the defendant’s property or financial condition may be considered in fixing the amount.
- A later reconciliation or temporary resumption of marital relations does not extinguish liability for earlier alienation of affections or criminal conversation; it may affect the measure of damages rather than the existence of the claim.
- Appellate review of trial management and argument focuses on whether any complained-of incident likely affected the verdict; absent a showing of prejudice or abuse of discretion, the verdict stands.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict for alienation of affections and criminal conversation, holding that the trial judge acted within discretion in admitting relationship evidence that included limited opinion-type testimony, that claimed trial irregularities were not prejudicial, that punitive damages were supported by evidence of malice and the defendant’s means, and that reconciliation did not bar recovery for prior wrongful interference and adultery.


Parker v. Hoefer, 100 A.2d 434 (Vt. 1953)