Historically a marital partner could not sue a spouse because of "interspousal tort immunity." The
historic common law viewed spouses becoming one legal person with the husband having control
over the person and property of the wife. Thus, for example, there was no criminal law of marital
rape, and a wife was required to have the consent of her husband to contract and obtain credit.
Additionally, it was feared, allowing lawsuits between spouses would overthrow the institution of
marriage, create serious social disorder, flood the courts with frivolous claims, and encourage
fraudulent activity that targeted insurance companies.
This legal viewpoint significantly changed in the U.S. legal system in the 1970s with the expansion of
legal rights for women. The following are several of many examples. In 1970 California was the first
state to legislatively create no-fault divorce [signed by Governor Reagan]. Marital rape became a
crime with Nebraska legislation in 1976. The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974) granted
married women the right to obtain individual credit, and the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act
(1978) protected against firing and discrimination due to pregnancy. Supreme Court decisions
echoed this trend, such as Roe v. Wade (1973), and a unanimous decision in 1986 recognized sexual
harassment as a form of unlawful discrimination [Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson].
Of course, precursors to these developments might be traced to many events including state Married
Women's Property Acts in the 1800s that allowed married women to manage their own property and
sue and be sued. As early as 1882 a New York intermediate appellate court decision, reversed,
would have allowed a wife to sue her husband [Schultz v. Schultz]. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1910
interpreted the District of Columbia marital property statute as not allowing a wife to sue her
husband [Thompson v. Thompson].
Hence, today it is possible for one spouse to sue another for both intentional (deliberate) and
negligent (unreasonably careless) torts (injuries). This comment briefly provides an incomplete
educational overview of spousal lawsuits. Always consult an experienced attorney in all family law
and litigation matters.
The rationale for allowing interspousal lawsuits was that the injury (tort) had already disrupted any
domestic harmony and that a wrongdoer should not be able to escape the consequences of his or her
conduct. One might initially think of physical and emotional injuries but the contemporary approach
also includes property fraud.
Statutes of limitations (time period after the injury to sue) vary from state-to-state, so do not delay
legal action. In some situations, the running of a statute of limitation may be stopped ("tolled").
Many spousal torts are continuing and each new wrongful action may restart the statute of
limitation. A physical or emotional injury from a tort may be latent (hidden) and possibly the statute
of limitations may not begin to run until the impact is apparent. Statutes of limitation issues are
complex and require consultation with an experienced attorney.
There are any number of intentional torts such as parental kidnapping of children, invasions of
privacy via wiretapping, video or audio surveillance, assault (threats of harmful or offensive contact)
and battery (actual harmful or offensive contact), and transmitting sexual diseases. One could easily
list several pages of potential torts. Depending upon state law, the damages are both compensatory
(actual dollar loss including items such as property damage, medical expense, and lost wages),
punitive (damages to punish a wrongdoer), and potentially attorney fees and court costs. Of course,