Bob ROHHHHHHHHHRMAN Sues Doctor for Alienating the Affection of His Wife… a.k.a. She Cheated, He’s Pissed…

By Brittany Bihun 

Feeling scorned by your spouse? Want revenge? Or how about just humiliation and MONEY MONEY MONEYYYYY in return for their cheating ways? That’s exactly what Bob Rohrman is seeking to do by suing the doctor his wife slept with during his marriage by using an ancient Illinois law called “alienation of affection.” 

Alienation of affection, an intentional tort and subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, has been abolished in many states, but it’s still going strong in Illinois. Hargan v. Southwestern Elec. Co-op., Inc., 311 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (5^th Dist. 2000).  However, the courts have limited the damages that may be awarded to a plaintiff in an action for alienation of affection to only “actual damages.”  This includes loss of income formerly contributed to the marriage and the cost of replacing the adulterous spouse’s non-monetary contributions to the household.  For example, a stay at home mom may find her “contributions” priced out in the form of the cost of baby-sitters, house cleaning service, grocery deliveries, laundry services, etc.  This can often be the most offensive, painful, and humiliating part of the case for the adulterous spouse; apart, of course, from having their dirty laundry aired out in court.  In Illinois, recovery of damages cannot be in the form of pain and suffering or emotional distress, which is often where the big bucks come from.  Also unique in Illinois, a scorned spouse may possibly sue third parties, such as a business, that allowed or encouraged the affair to happen.  The recovery of damages does not violate public policy in Illinois because it involves rights which all the members of the family have a right to protect, that of a complete family structure, and in which the state likewise has an interest. Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296 (1946). 

To succeed in an action for alienation of affection in Illinois, a plaintiff must prove three things: (1) the love and affection of the alienated spouse for the plaintiff, (2) overt acts, conduct, or enticement on the part of the defendant causing those affections to depart, and (3) actual damages were sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such alienation. Orbeta v. Gomez, 315 Ill. App. 3d 687 (2^nd Dist. 2000).  Ordinarily, in order to recover in an action for alienation of affection there must be an existing marriage between the plaintiff and the spouse.  Furthermore, the existence of a spouse’s love and affection for the plaintiff prior to an alleged alienation of the spouse’s affections by the defendant is a question for the jury. Farmer v. Farmer, 46 Ill. App. 2d 471 (4^th Dist. 1964).  That’s right, a plaintiff has to prove their spouse “loved” them in the first place… sounds silly, but it’s the LAW.  

Bob Rohrman, you may know from those cheesy commercials in which a cartoon lion drives off in a car at the end. (click here for a taste   Rohrman, 76, married Rhonda Kay, 30 years his junior at age 46, in December of 2002 in Hawaii.  It became apparent to Rohrman sometime in 2008 that his wife and plastic surgeon with offices in Chicago and LaGrange, Dr. Sami Bittar, were exchanging emails and having an affair together.  Rohrman subsequently filed or divorce but the two soon reconciled.  A few months later, however, Rohrman again spotted emails between the two and this time Kay filed for divorce.  Rohrman responded by filing suit against Dr. Bittar for alienating the affections of his wife.  The question of course comes down to, did Dr. Bittar pirate away Kay’s affections from Rohrman, or did the affections just die off… possibly because she couldn’t stand one more commercial?  Rohrman alleges that Dr. Bittar started buying his wife expensive gifts, taking her on dates, and having “sexual relations with [his wife] on multiple occasions and in multiple locations.”  Rohrman is seeking over $50,000 in the lawsuit filed in June of 2009.   

I, personally, find it striking that Rohrman feels he is entitled to over $50,000, assuming he is claiming she would have contributed that much to their marriage, because she cheated on him.  Have you seen his hair?  Maybe you should watch the commercial again… It also not surprising to me that Illinois still finds use in an ancient law to squeeze more money out of people because their “love” was stolen away by a third party.  Maybe we, the public, should come to grips with the fact that people cheat, it’s not 1950 any longer, no one stays married for the right reasons because they probably did not get married for them either.  Money has that effect sometimes… Also, what contributions would she have made totaling $50,000?  I think his biggest hurdle in this lawsuit is proving that she loved him in the first place and didn’t just want his money… I wonder what documents would show that… 

What do you think?  Do you think Rohrman could/should win in this lawsuit against the man who stole his wife?