Business owners have the worst divorces. A business owner’s income will be challenged because, after, the business owner pays themselves. The value of the business must be determined by outside experts without an actual sale (business owners always want to keep their business). Furthermore, a business owner’s spouse knows the strengths and weaknesses of the business and can actively sabotage their spouse’s business during the tumult of a divorce. When a spouse does actions or inactions that actively harm a business, the business owning spouse can file additional claims beyond the Petition For Dissolution of Marriage, effectively suing the spouse for the damages that spouse is causing to the business. This strategy can be very effective in a family law court where additional claims are almost never pled. Tortious Interference With A Prospective Economic Advantage The tort of “tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage” is a tool a business owner can use to recover damages from another person, even a spouse, who ruins some kind of economic opportunity. “It is generally recognized by the Illinois courts, however, that to prevail on a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must prove: (1) his reasonable expectation of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s expectancy; (3) purposeful interference by the defendant that prevents the plaintiff’s legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship; and (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from such interference.” Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 511 (Ill. 1991) This tort is far easier to prove against a business owner’s spouse because any negative action by that spouse cannot be inferred to have some reasonable purpose (a defense a competitor could enjoy). “In Illinois, a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic expectancy must [have]…intentional and malicious interference with the expectancy without just cause.” Disher v. Fulgoni, 161 Ill. App. 3d 1, 24 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) An “allegation [must have] ‘intentional and malicious interference’ necessary to establish a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.” Small v. Sussman, 306 Ill. App. 3d 639, 648-49 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) “[I]f [a defendant’s] conduct is directed solely to the satisfaction of his spite or ill will and not at all to the advancement of his competitive interests over the person harmed, his interference is held to be improper.” TOTAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS v. Staffing, […]
