Twyman v. Twyman

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. It further held that such a tort claim may be joined with a divorce proceeding, subject to res judicata principles and safeguards against double recovery in dividing the marital estate. Because the case had proceeded under the subsequently rejected theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial in the interest of justice.

Holdings

1. Texas recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1). The plaintiff must prove intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, and severe emotional distress.
2. Intentional infliction of emotional distress includes conduct undertaken either intentionally or recklessly. Intent may be established by evidence that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that emotional harm would result, and recklessness may be established when the defendant consciously disregards a high degree of risk of harm.
3. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be brought by one spouse against the other in a divorce proceeding.
4. A tort claim may be joined with a divorce action, subject to res judicata principles, and joinder is encouraged when feasible; the manner of trial remains within the trial court's discretion.
5. When a divorcing spouse receives tort damages, the same tortious conduct may not also support a disproportionate division of the community estate. The court must account for the tort award when dividing the marital property, while still considering other permissible property-division factors.
6. Because the court of appeals affirmed recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a cause of action Texas had rejected, the judgment could not be affirmed. A new trial was warranted in the interest of justice because the case may have proceeded under the wrong legal theory and the facts developed on retrial might support intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be asserted in a divorce proceeding.
2. Whether Texas should recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1).
3. Whether tort claims may be joined with a divorce action and, if joined, how tort damages must be considered in dividing the marital estate.
4. Whether the court of appeals' judgment awarding damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress could be affirmed on an intentional-infliction theory after Texas rejected negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded