## Facts

- Drew A. Sharp and Abbie Sharp married in 1977 and had two minor children.
- In 1984, Abbie began working part-time as a physician’s assistant for Dr. Maurice K. Roskelley; she later worked full time.
- In 1985, Abbie entered alcoholism treatment; Roskelley paid for treatment and continued paying her wages during her absence.
- Abbie and Roskelley began spending time together socially; they kissed and later had sexual relations on several occasions.
- The spouses disputed the preexisting condition of the marriage:
  - Drew claimed the marriage was essentially sound until Abbie’s relationship with Roskelley.
  - Abbie testified she had been unhappy for years, attributed major marital problems to Drew’s frequent unemployment and failure to provide, and stated divorce had been discussed repeatedly since 1982–83.
- In July 1985, Abbie asked Drew to move out; Drew filed for divorce that month. A divorce decree entered in December 1986.
- While the divorce was pending, Drew sued Roskelley (September 1985) for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Roskelley on both claims, concluding (as to alienation) that Roskelley was not the controlling cause of the loss of Abbie’s affections.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on alienation of affections where the evidence conflicted on whether the defendant’s conduct was the “controlling cause” of the loss of spousal affection.
2. Whether a claim for criminal conversation could proceed after Utah abolished that tort in a contemporaneous decision.

## Decision

- Summary judgment on alienation of affections was reversed and the claim remanded because disputed facts existed regarding the prior state of the marriage and causation.
- Summary judgment on criminal conversation was affirmed because Utah abolished the tort, leaving no cognizable cause of action.
- The court indicated further discovery regarding the defendant’s financial condition could proceed on remand as relevant to damages, and it declined to address certain evidentiary complaints not preserved below.

## Legal Principles

- Alienation of affections requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was the “controlling cause” of the alienation, meaning it outweighs the combined effect of all other causes, including the conduct of both spouses.
- When the marital history and relative causes of alienation are materially disputed, controlling-cause determinations are generally for the fact-finder and are not suitable for summary judgment.
- Criminal conversation is not actionable in Utah following its abolition by the Utah Supreme Court, and pending claims fail as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that conflicting evidence about whether the marriage had already deteriorated created a triable issue on whether the defendant’s conduct was the controlling cause of any alienation of affections, but it barred the criminal conversation claim because that tort no longer exists in Utah.


Sharp v. Roskelley, 818 P.2d 4 (Utah 1991)