There's no cure for a broken heart at least not under Pennsylvania law.
A man whose wife had an affair with the pastor of their church has no legal recourse, a Philadelphia trial judge has ruled.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Lisa M. Rau dismissed plaintiff Timothy Laidlaw's claims against the pastor and the church for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, vicarious liability, negligent hiring and supervision, defamation and false light.
In a 71-page opinion explaining her reasoning in Laidlaw v. Converge MidAtlantic, Rau said Laidlaw "presented no law that would support his claimed right to recover monetary damages simply because he was humiliated and hurt by a relationship someone had with his wife."
Rau said Laidlaw's claims were similar to so-called "heart balm torts," such as alienation of affections, criminal conversation and breach of promise to marry. Such causes of action once existed under common law but were abolished decades ago, in part because they were based on the antiquated notion that a man had an exclusive property interest in his wife's person and services, according to the opinion.
"This court is sympathetic to the heartache, betrayal, and loss of faith that appellant has experienced in the wake of his spouse's affair with their pastor," Rau said. "But not all that is unfair or painful has a remedy in a court of law. Decades ago, our commonwealth decided that its courts would no longer serve as a source of relief for a person whose spouse had strayed from a marriage, and would no longer punish and levy damages on the third person who had interfered with that marriage."
According to the opinion, defendant Christopher McCloskey, who at the time was the pastor of a Baptist church in Newtown called Grace Point, began an affair with Laidlaw's wife referred to only as "Jane Doe" after providing religious marriage counseling to the couple.
Laidlaw alleged that, as a result of that counseling, McCloskey owed him a fiduciary duty. Laidlaw testified that he had placed his trust in McCloskey as a pastor and spiritual adviser, counselor and friend.
But Rau said allowing such a claim to go forward against either McCloskey or the church would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment's deference rule.
"A jury would have to interpret religious canons and beliefs to determine whether appellant's trust in his pastor reasonably established a fiduciary duty in the context of their religion," Rau said. "Such an intrusion by the courts into religious doctrine and practice is constitutionally prohibited."