Tortuous Interferance of a Business Relationship

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

j2thep66

New Member
My x wife & I share joint physical custody of our 4 year old daughter. Although we share all expenses, medical 50/50, & have identical fixed expenses. I am ordered to pay support. I recently appealed to have the support dropped due to our identical expenses. As we went into court earlier than a year from the original ruling, the rebuttal was that our claim was frivilous. As such, ruling went against me, support was upheld & I was ordered to pay her attory expenses.

As we were leaving, on the way out of the courthouse, my x was laughing at me so, I promptly went back to my office & faxed court documents outlining her recent criminal history into the corporate offices of her employer. She was fired within a week.

Was this illegal?
Can this be considered a "tortious interference with a business relationship?"
Can I be sued for informing her employer of her criminal history?

Thanks
 
Nah. Maybe immoral, but not illegal.
So long as you didn't try to blackmail her over the information and the information was true, don't worry about it.

The only liability here could be on the employer for wrongful termination, but you would be in the clear.
 
It's not tortious interference with a business relationship as long as the information was true. It might not have been the smartest thing to do since she can now take you BACK into court and up the child support. I hope the revenge was worth it.
 
Last edited:
Any additional feedback? Upon reading the wiki definition of tort interferance, it look as if it could apply here. How does it not apply? Thanks!
 
I lifted this from a Rice dba Just Drains v. Huxley, customer NO:49A02-0409-CV-799

The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are:
(1) the existence of a valid relationship;
(2) the defendant's knowledge of the existence of the relationship;
(3) the defendant's intentional interference with that relationship;
(4) the absence of justification;
(5) damages resulting from defendant's wrongful interference with the relationship.

Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589, 598 n.21 (Ind. 2001) (citing Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215, 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).

I would argue that her actual criminal record provides you justification for notifying her work. She apparently did not properly notify them of her criminal history when she applied for the job, or did not let them know that she was arrested and found guilty of something after she had her job. She is without "clean hands" in this matter. All you did was to bring something to their attention that she probably had a duty to bring to their attention.

Like I said, I would worry more about increased child support. What you did was not very nice, pretty petty, and any judge looking at it is going to be pretty disgusted. That isn't the best place to be with a Judge. But, tortious interference, I don't think so.
 
It is also not tortious interference with contract (as opposed to business relationship) because no contract has been breached. Firing somebody in an at-will employment relationship is not a breach.
 
Public Information vs. Truthful Information, Not Public

I need a clarification as I omitted that pieces of the info I shared with my x's employer were truthful however not public to my knowledge. I shared 3 pieces of info:

1) Court transcripts that included a confession to embezzlement from a previous employer. Public info.
2) A Fidelity of Loss Report which outlines nature of loss, facts pertaining to the loss & a statement of suspicion of employee guilt. The form also notes that the FBI & the local police were the investigaing agencies. This form was part of the investigating record from the Federal Credit Union she worked at & embezzled from. (This incident was a 2nd incident & is seperate from the incident in 1). I obtained this form from a letter that came to the house addressed to my x prior to our seperation. It was probably not publically available.
3) An anonymous letter posing as a concerned customer of the employer, relaying the criminal history.

Lateral note: my x avoided prosecution for the 2nd incident involving the Fidelity of Loss report, declaring bankruptcy. When we were in pre divorce mediation, it came to light that the case was still open.

Am I liable for submitting the Fidelity of Loss Report as it was not public info? Or, am I ok as the info was truthful?
 
You were being a jerk because of the situation. She was being a jerk because of the situation. None of it amounts to TORTIOUS interference as explained before. Providing true information that the party would want to know about another party is not tortious. You are both being childish with each other and you are being harmful but you can rest easy that she can't sue you for it. On the other hand, as I said, you are likely to get hit with more child support. Keep up the war of the roses!
 
I do understand, agree & concur to the point regarding childish behavior. Curbing tit for tat behavior is something I am sincerely working on. That said, she has sued me in the three paraphrased counts below received this past week. I have till the 26th to respond. As I plan on a pro se defense at least initially, what counters would you suggest per point? I'd sincerely appreciate any point x point dissemination &/or any supporting case references. Thanks in advance!

Verified Complaint
1. Plaintiff employed.
2. Defendant aware of employment.
3. Parties have Dissolution of Marriage case pending (Actually - divorce finalized Nov. 08 by filing attorney - is the attorney intentionally misleading here & for what purpose?).

Count I - Tortuous Interference with Contract
4. Restate alligations 1-3.
5. Beginning Aug 07 plaintiff employed.
6. Defendant aware of.
7. Aug 09 Defendent sent letter to employer stating plaintiff fired from previous employment - asks employer to take appropriate action.
8. By sending letter - Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's employment contract.
9. Direct result of the letter - Plaintiff fired.
10. Plaintiff suffered damages incl lost wages.
11. Defendant had no justification.
12. By sending letter listing reasons for past termination - Defendant acted intentionally & without legit business purpose.
13. By sending letter - Defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence & oppressivness.
Wherefore plaintiff requests comp damages, punitive, costs, appropriate.

Count II - Tort Interference with a Business Relationship
14. restates 1-13.
15. Plaintiff had business relationship.
16. Defendant had knowledge of.
17. By sending letter - intentionally interfered with.
18. Plaintiff suffered damages - wrongful interference - direct result of letter.
19. No justification.
20. Defendant acted illegally in sending letter to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (again, divorce final Nov 08 - no advantages, possible disadvantages).

Count III - Injunction
21. restates 1-20.
22. Defendant contacted employer - intentionally interfered with employment relationship.
23. unless restrained - Defendant will continue to contact future employers with intent to interfere.
24. actions of Defendant will result in immediate irreperable harm to Plaintiff in that future contracts will be in danger.
25. Harm to Plaintiff if injunction not granted outweighs harm to Defendant if motion granted.
26. Plaintifff has no adequate remedy at law. Monetary damages while necessary will not adequatley protect Plaintiff.
27. Interests of public will not be disserved by granting Plaintiff's motion.
Wherefore Plaintiff prays for permanent injunction from future contact of Plaintiff employers.
 
This really goes beyond the scope of a free forum, but just for the fun of it I'm going to give you a pretty detailed answer. UNFORTUNATELY HOUSE is on and you will have to wait :p

Check back in a few hours.
 
I understand this is a pretty extraneous request for a free forum. Waiting is no problem. I hoped that listing this count x count would at least be interesting. I think I have a decent grasp on some areas of potential defense, however this attorney is a fairly high powered attorney who obviously feels confident in this filing therefore any additonal firepower to put this down from the onset would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
No, I just noticed that. You will download what you need when you need it.
 
jharris352 said:
Check your wall and email me.
Click to expand...

What seems to be the problem of discussing the issue here? What is beyond the scope of the forum? People have attached documents and excerpts as they wish in order to be able to have others review and provide general opinions.

We have resources here for finding lawyers, if needed, which ensures that a lawyer is providing assistance in according with ethical guidelines and that a retainer agreement is signed if it would be warranted given the circumstances. The challenge of having a private messaging system, except for certain approved users, is the number of potential ethical violations and solicitations (ethical or not.)
 
Lawprofessor, jharris352 felt that the length my post was extraneous for a free forum & his responses may be as well. I welcome additonal feedback &/or alternate opinions from any parties who may be able to shed additional light on this discussion. Is there any feedback you can add, I would be indebted. Thanks in advance!
 
There is no post length limitation here (except as is practical per post). I'm not sure what is the difference between a post and email unless it goes to the point of requiring some retainer agreement to provide legal advice and counsel.

I read part of the thread. Making a true statement does not mean that you are not liable for tortious interference with business. As an example of this law in another state, which is probably similar in most respects and also cited above:

The plaintiff must show that the defendant:

(a) Acted improperly and without privilege;
(b) Acted purposely and with malice and with the intent to injure;
(c) Induced a third party or parties not to continue a business relationship with
the plaintiff; and
(d) The plaintiff suffered financial injury as a result.

The information provided likely IS true but that isn't the point. The tort is a malicious intent to injure another person, whether with truthful information or not (defamation action.) I'm not sure what justification there is to provide this information, even if it is criminal. For example, let's say it was a misdemeanor loitering charge. It's rather innocuous. Even if an employer could terminate "at will" the bottom line is that the employer's decision to do so was not by that right but because of someone else's intent to injure another person/entity in business. I don't know the details of the case but it certainly was not a smart thing to do and I'd argue that there could be a case, especially since it satisfies the elements to make a prima facie case. It then becomes the defendant's burden to show it doesn't satisfy those elements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top