ADVERTISEMENT

Wealthy Doctor Pays $50,000 For Stealing Man's Wife

It's not every day that a man walks into your office and asks you to help him sue a prominent local doctor for stealing his wife.

But that's what happened to Mike Hester, a Biloxi, Miss., solo who says he was "basically starving" in 1994 when Charlie McMahon walked into his office with his unusual complaint.

"I was just starting out, and didn't have anything else to do," says Hester. "I saw I could handle this without putting a lot of money into it, and definitely felt like the guy had been wronged."

McMahon claimed that Biloxi neurologist Richard Gorman plied his wife Louise with rented hideaways, fancy trips, promises of luxury cars and – ultimately – an adopted baby in order to lure her away from her husband.

But Hester clearly had his work cut out for him.

To start with, his suit was based on a rarely-recognized cause of action with a very difficult standard of proof – he had to prove that Gorman actively induced Louise to have an affair and that these inducements broke an otherwise satisfactory marriage.

And it didn't help matters that Charlie was Louise's sixth husband, creating a natural inference that the guy really should have known what he was getting into when he married her.

What's more, Dr. Gorman hired the largest, most prestigious firm on Mississippi's Gulf Coast to defend him.

"The senior partner in that firm personally handled the case and they were able to hire expert upon expert, take endless depositions and use all sorts of delay tactics," says Hester.

In contrast, Hester was a solo with a mere two years' experience and little money to fund the case.

"I didn't know what I was getting into," he says. "I had no idea what course this litigation would take. This was only the second civil trial I'd ever handled – the first lasted an hour-and-a-half. And [in the McMahon case] there were a whole lot of rules and procedures that I had no idea how they actually worked in the courtroom."

But the combination of a relatively sympathetic plaintiff, compelling evidence and the selection of a "god-fearing" jury helped Hester overcome these barriers and come away with a $50,000 verdict for his client.

The defendant plans to appeal, according to Steve Peresich of Biloxi, who represented Gorman along with partner Fred Mannino.

"The reason they got the verdict is that the jury improperly wanted to punish the defendant simply for having a relationship with a married woman who had long decided that she no longer wanted anything to do with her husband," says Peresich. "The plaintiff didn't prove that Dr. Gorman either induced [Louise] or caused her to leave her husband. Their decision was not based on the law or the facts of the case."

A Love That 'Would Last Forever'

Charlie and Louise McMahon married in 1984. Both were in their late 30's at the time with children from prior marriages.

Louise had already been married and divorced five times before she met Charlie. Nonetheless, Charlie felt the sixth time was the charm.

"Our marriage was great," he says. "It didn't make a difference to me whether she was married for the first time or the 40th time. Knowing her like I thought I knew her, I thought our marriage would last forever."

But Louise apparently viewed the marriage differently.

"She testified that [Charlie] didn't treat her like a lady and was never there for her," says Peresich, the defense lawyer. "She said she'd come home after a hard day's work and he'd be sitting on the couch waiting for supper to be handed to him." Louise also testified that she was dissatisfied with their sex life.

Charlie, however, insists that despite a couple of brief separations early on in the marriage, he never detected a major problem.

"She did spend a lot of time supposedly shopping," he says. "But I wasn't a jealous person – I mean, this woman is in her forties with two grandchildren. It never occurred to me she could have been having an affair."

But that's exactly what she was doing, as Charlie learned in 1993, shortly after Louise filed for divorce.

Hester adds that Charlie was "devastated" by the discovery.

"He had to seek long-term psychiatric help," Hester says. "In fact, if I'd had more money [to litigate the case], we could have probably shown that a subsequent heart attack he had was related to stresses caused by this situation."

Charlie sued Gorman in 1994 and the divorce became final in 1995.

Biloxi Blues

According to Hester, the biggest obstacle he faced was satisfying the elements of an alienation of affection claim, especially given that this cause of action is not even recognized in 38 states. He knew it would be a challenge to show that Gorman was a true aggressor, using his financial superiority and influence in the community to entice the woman away from her husband.

"If she'd left simply because of problems in the marriage or because she'd met someone and it was true love at first sight, it would have been very difficult," he says. "We needed to portray a situation of promises of financial gain, inducements and, frankly, [the allure of] being the girlfriend of a prominent doctor in a small community. There's a social-status thing, and it's all crucial."

Hester did this largely through records produced in discovery showing that Gorman:

• Paid for Louise's divorce lawyer;

• Paid for the apartment they used during their affair;

• Leased a new Lexus for Louise after she separated from her husband;

• Took Louise on trips to New York and North Carolina while she was still married to Charlie;

• Bought Louise expensive gifts; and

• Adopted a baby with Louise shortly after she divorced Charlie.

In contrast, Hester painted Charlie as a "regular Joe" who worked hard but never made more than $30,000 a year and just couldn't compete for the affections of a materialistic woman.

"We showed how he was simply overwhelmed by all the things the doctor did," Hester comments. "He could not match the guy dollar for dollar or even penny for dollar."

For example, Charlie testified that Louise, who was well into her 40s at the time, wanted to adopt a child. She and Charlie already had adult children from previous marriages and Charlie had no interest in becoming a father again.

So Hester introduced adoption records showing how quickly Gorman came through with an adopted baby for Louise after she and Charlie divorced.

"We argued that he essentially bought her a baby," says Hester, adding that the adoption went through before Louise and Gorman married despite Mississippi's prohibition on adoption by unmarried couples.

Perisich dismisses the adoption as a red herring.

"The baby was a relative of Louise's," says Perisich. "And she needed someone financially and morally capable of taking care of her. The [adoption court] hired a guardian ad litem, who testified at trial in this case that [the adoption] was one of the most kind, compassionate actions he'd ever seen anyone take."

Nonetheless, there was still the issue of the Lexus and the apartment. Hester introduced photos which Charlie had taken when he first discovered the affair. The photos showed Louise's old Pontiac parked next to Gorman's BMW at the apartment he'd leased for her.

"You contrast the car she had been driving – which is something she could afford on Charlie's salary – with the Lexus he leased for her, and you can see the inducement the doctor was making for her to go with him," says Hester.

But to prevail, Hester had to overcome the doctor's defense that Louise was the true aggressor.

According to Hester, defense counsel put Louise on the stand at trial to testify that she was the one encouraging the affair, telephoning Dr. Gorman and inviting him to dinner.

"But this strategy failed," he says. "For one thing, where did they have dinner? In the apartment he was paying for. And all these trips they took together – she wasn't the one paying. It's ludicrous to even suggest otherwise."

Hester adds that Louise's testimony on the stand contradicted her earlier deposition testimony which portrayed Dr. Gorman as the aggressor, and that she admitted she'd been coached.

Peresich disputes all this.

"That's an argument he made in closing argument, but it's ridiculous," he says. "She testified about the truth. To my recollection, there was no conflict. He tried to argue it, but we disagree with it."

At the same time, Hester had to overcome arguments that the marriage was dead long before Dr. Gorman came onto the scene.

Hester says the defense relied on testimony from Louise's two sisters saying that the couple had an unsatisfactory sex life.

"But there was no hard evidence of any of this, so they came across as simple allegations and the jury saw right through it," he says.

The defense also presented testimony from Louise and her sisters that Charlie spent more time fishing than paying attention to his wife.

"But Charlie's best friend testified that Louise actually encouraged him to go fishing," he says. "And we had pictures of Charlie and his wife in Las Vegas having a great time in the casinos together shortly before she told him she wanted a divorce."

Husband Number Six

Hester also had to combat the natural skepticism the jury might have had toward a man who married a woman who'd had five previous husbands.

"That's a tough thing to overcome," he concedes. "But you have to remember that her other marriages were of very short duration. She was married to Charlie for over 10 years. The other marriages combined were shorter or equal to that one."

Charlie's own trial testimony turned out to be Hester's best weapon in convincing the jury that the marriage – and the claim – should be taken seriously.

"It was a humiliating experience for him, but he did well," says Hester. "He told the jury about their extended families with children and grandchildren, and how they all spent holidays together. And how his wife kept an immaculate house, was a gourmet cook, cut his hair and just provided for him. And now all of this was taken away. The doctor got what he wanted, Louise got what she wanted, but Charlie was left with nothing. He was devastated by all this and had to seek long-term psychiatric help."

The jury sympathized enough to award Charlie $50,000. Hester attributes the award to the jury's "fundamental Christian values," which he actively sought during voir dire. But at the same time, he thinks lingering skepticism over Louise's history contributed to a diminished award in the end.

"I'm sure it was because it was her sixth marriage," he says. "They wanted to give Charlie something, but if he'd had a 20-year marriage to a little 'Mary Poppins wife' who'd been his high-school sweetheart, I'm sure the award would have been much greater."

Meanwhile, Charlie evidently has not lost faith in the institution of marriage – he's engaged again, with a wedding slated for later this fall.

Plaintiff's attorneys: Michael Hester and Deborah Hester, Hester & Hester, Biloxi, Miss.

Defendant's attorneys: Fred Mannino and Stephen Peresich, Page, Mannino, Peresich, Dickinson & McDermott, Biloxi, Miss.

The case: McMahon v. Gorman, Harrison County Circuit Court, Case No. A-2401-94-00271, Judge Jerry O. Terry.