Alienation of affections

Last updated

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. [1]

Contents

The tort of alienation of affections often overlaps with another "heart balm" tort: criminal conversation. Alienation of affections has most in common with the tort of tortious interference, where a third party can be held liable for interfering with the contractual relationship between two parties.

An action for alienation of affection does not require proof of extramarital sex. An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and there are several defenses.

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show the following elements:

  1. the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree;
  2. the spousal love was alienated;
  3. the defendant's malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection.

It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact the marriage.

Thus, the defendant has a defense against an alienation claim where it can be shown that he or she did not know that the object of his or her affections was in fact married. It is not a defense that the guilty spouse consented to the defendant's conduct, but it might be a defense that the defendant was not the active and aggressive seducer.

If the defendant's conduct was somehow inadvertent, the plaintiff would be unable to show intentional or malicious action. But prior marital problems do not establish a defense unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.

Australia

Alienation of affection actions in Australia stopped being good law since 1975, with the passing of the Family Law Act 1975. [2] In the new system, outlined by the statute, there exists a fault-less ground of divorce, and that is irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, which is evidenced by 12 months of separation. Spousal behaviour though, can be a consideration a court may take into account during a property settlement.

Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that alienation of affection and the related tort cause of action for "criminal conversation" was not available as a cause of action in the year 1962 in the case of Kungl v. Schiefer, S.C.R. 443. [3] The basis for the claim by the party suing in an Ontario case had been that Canada incorporated by reference the law of England as of the year 1792, but the Supreme Court of Canada held that England did not recognize that tort in the year 1792, so it was not a part of the law of Canada.

United States

As of 2016, alienation of affections was recognized in six United States jurisdictions: Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. [4] [5] The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider the constitutionality of such torts by writ of certiorari, notwithstanding academic commentary suggesting that these torts are unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and relevant modern precedents decided based upon it, including Obergefell v. Hodges , that struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriage in the United States. [6] The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the tort in several cases that did not question its constitutionality, including U.S. v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 310 (1960) (dissenting opinion) (tax treatment of damages awards); Lykes v. U.S., 343 U.S. 118, 126 (1952) (tax deductions for litigation costs); Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 373 (1948) (dissenting opinion) (full faith and credit afforded to divorce judgments); Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 105 (1933) (admissibility of evidence); Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473, 474 (1904) (availability of discharge of damages awards in bankruptcy); Waldron v. Waldron, 156 U.S. 361, 362–64 (1895) (preservation of objections to evidence when transcripts from a related proceeding are introduced). The U.S. Supreme Court has never granted certiorari on the constitutionality of the tort.

The tort of alienation of affection was inherited as part of the common law. The law was codified in some states, the first one being New York with legislation in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states, including New York [7] and Illinois. [8] Most states have abolished the action by legislation, but some came to an end by judicial review.

For example, in 1927, actions for alienation of affection were abolished in Louisiana as a result of Moulin v. Monteleone, 165 La. 169, 115 So. 447. See also South Carolina case Russo v. Sutton, 422 SE 2d 750 (1992), abolishing the heart balm action for alienation of affection.

Hawaii

In Hawaii, the plaintiff has to prove his spouse did not seek the defendant, and has to show a lack of any marital fault. [9]

Mississippi

In 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court, in Fitch v. Valentine, in which the cheated husband, Johnny Valentine, received $750,000, upheld the constitutionality of the state's alienation of affection law. [10] [11] [12]

New Mexico

The law was confirmed in 1999 by the New Mexico Supreme Court, although the field was heavily restricted, the courts viewing this cause of action with disfavor. [13] [9]

North Carolina

Alienation of affection and criminal conversation lawsuits are allowed in North Carolina. It is estimated that over 200 alienation of affection cases are filed in North Carolina each year.

Million-dollar verdicts have not been uncommon in North Carolina for alienation of affection and emotional distress. [14] In March 2010, a wife won a $9 million suit against her husband's mistress. [15] A Mecklenburg County jury awarded $1.4 million in May 2001 to a former wrestling coach against P, after the coach's wife left him for P (the jury verdict was later reduced by the North Carolina Court of Appeals as excessive). A year 2000 verdict of $86,250 for alienation of affections and $15,000 for criminal conversation in the case of Pharr v. Beck, from Burke county was upheld on appeal. In 1997, in the case of Hutelmyer v. Cox, the Plaintiff wife was awarded $1 million against her husband's secretary who "dressed sexy at work" and had an affair with him destroying their marriage. [14] In 2011, Betty Devin was ordered to pay $30 million to Carol Puryear for alienating Donald Puryear from her, causing their divorce. [16] [17]

In North Carolina such lawsuits can be filed only for conduct prior to a separation; although, prior to changes in the law which went into effect in October 2009, the tort of criminal conversion applied to post-separation conduct as well. [18]

The North Carolina legislature has repeatedly had bills to abolish the tort introduced, and declined to do so. [19] In 2009, the General Assembly approved legislation which placed some additional limits on such lawsuits. [20] The bill was signed into law by Governor Bev Perdue on August 3, 2009, and is codified under Chapter 52 of the North Carolina General Statutes: [21]

§ 52-13. Procedures in causes of action for alienation of affection and criminal conversation.

(a) No act of the defendant shall give rise to a cause of action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation that occurs after the plaintiff and the plaintiff's spouse physically separate with the intent of either the plaintiff or plaintiff's spouse that the physical separation remain permanent.

(b) An action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation shall not be commenced more than three years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.

(c) A person may commence a cause of action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation against a natural person only. [18]

An Alienation of Affections suit may be brought against an employer if one of these three circumstances is evident.

  1. The employer authorized the employee's acts;
  2. The employee's acts were committed within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the employer's business; or
  3. The employer ratifies the employee's acts.[ citation needed ]

Each of the three limitations arose from a recent North Carolina legal case involving the tort.

  1. In Jones v. Skelly, N.C.App. 2009, the North Carolina Court of Appeals had held that the tort applies even to legally separated spouses.
  2. In Mesenheimer v. Burris, N.C. 2006, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute of limitation commences when the affair should have been discovered rather than when it occurred.
  3. In Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, the Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina noted that the question of whether an employer could be held liable for an affair conducted by an employee (e.g. while on a business trip for the employer) was still unsettled in North Carolina.

There is often confusion over where an employee's "scope of employment" ends. An example of this would be a minister having sex with a person that has been receiving counseling services from that minister. In theory the minister is acting within the scope of employment because it is their duty to provide these counseling services and it is through these services that they gain access to the victim.

In 2014, Resident Superior Court Judge John O. Craig dismissed the case of Rothrock v. Cooke, ruling that the state's criminal conversion and alienation of affection laws were unconstitutional, infringing up on 1st and 14th amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution. [22] [23] That case was not appealed. In 2017, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a different case, ruled that the common law cause of action of alienation of affection was not facially invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. [24]

In 2017 the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in a 3-0 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the tort. See Malecek v. Williams 807 S.E.2d 574.

South Dakota

In 2002 the law was reworded to be gender-neutral, allowing wives to sue another woman. [25]

A man was awarded $950,000, later reduced to $400,000, in a 2002 case in which a South Dakota jury ruled that an orthopedic surgeon from Las Vegas had enticed the man's wife into an affair and had broken up their marriage. [25]

On 2007 it was ruled defenders in cases of alienation of affection were not entitled to be covered by their insurances, as this is an intentional tort. [26] [27]

Punitive damages are limited to 20% of the defendant's worth. [9]

Utah

Both in 1983 and eight years later in 1991, the Utah Supreme Court confirmed the legality of such claims, although Justice Christine M. Durham dissented in both cases, describing alienation of affection as "an anachronistic holdover from a bygone era, which modern rationalizations have failed to justify." However, in the 1991 ruling, they disallowed criminal conversation claims [28] The same court confirmed alienation of affections as a cause of action in 2002. [29]

Among the notables cases were Jason Miles Williams, who attempted several times to sue the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leadership for causing his divorce by saying his wife would be damned if she did not divorce [30] and Janice Peck suing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources after her husband left her for his new wife he met while posing as a couple to track poachers. [31]

Related Research Articles

Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place, or thing that results in damage to its reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

Breach of promise is a common-law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor. In this context, the word consortium means "(the right of) association and fellowship between two married people". Damages may be claimed under three theories: incurred medical costs or those yet to be incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of an injured spouse's services, and loss of society.

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case decided in 1953, which saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power. The US Supreme Court confirmed that "the privilege against revealing military secrets ... is well established in the law of evidence".

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal conversation</span> Tort arising from adultery

At common law, criminal conversation, often abbreviated as crim. con., is a tort arising from adultery. "Conversation" is an old euphemism for sexual intercourse that is obsolete except as part of this term.

Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 (1977), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the federal government determines marriage and divorce statuses between state lines. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to Nevada and filed for divorce from their respective spouses. Once the divorces were final Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married and then moved back to North Carolina. They lived there together until they were charged by the state of North Carolina for bigamous cohabitation.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations for a fabrication of evidence civil lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act begins to run when the criminal case ends in the plaintiff's favor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heartbalm tort</span>

In the common law tradition, a heartbalm tort or heartbalm action is a civil action that a person may bring to seek monetary compensation for the end or disruption of a romantic or marital relationship. A heartbalm statute is a statute forbidding such actions.

Adultery laws are the laws in various countries that deal with extramarital sex. Historically, many cultures considered adultery a very serious crime, some subject to severe punishment, especially in the case of extramarital sex involving a married woman and a man other than her husband, with penalties including capital punishment, mutilation, or torture. Such punishments have gradually fallen into disfavor, especially in Western countries from the 19th century. In countries where adultery is still a criminal offense, punishments range from fines to caning and even capital punishment. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries repealing them.

References

  1. ↑ Wayne Drash, CNN (2009-12-08). "Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you – CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. Retrieved 2015-02-26.{{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. ↑ "The Legal Reason You Should Think Twice About That Illicit Affair". bodyandsoulau. January 7, 2019.
  3. ↑ Canada, Supreme Court of (January 1, 2001). "Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search". scc-csc.lexum.com.
  4. ↑ Bruton, H. Hunter (January 2016). "The Questionable Constitutionality of Curtailing Cuckolding: Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation Torts".
  5. ↑ note: Illinois abolished this tort in 2016
  6. ↑ H. Hunter Bruton, The Questionable Constitutionality of Curtailing Cuckolding: Alienation-of Affection and Criminal-Conversation Torts, 65 Duke L.J. 755 (2016). http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol65/iss4/3
  7. ↑ N.Y. Civil Rights Law article 8, §§ 80-A to 84. "Causes of Action for Alienation of Affections, Criminal Conversion, Seduction and Breach of Contract to Marry Abolished". New York State Assembly . Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  8. ↑ "Russell D. Knight, In Chicago, Illinois Can I Sue The Person Who Stole My Wife Or Husband From Me?". rdklegal.com. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  9. 1 2 3 "Wash Park Prophet: Alienation of Affections Tort Lives in NC and MS". Wash Park Prophet. 2010-09-13. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
  10. ↑ Fitch v. Valentine 959 So. 2d 1012 (2007). FindLaw. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  11. ↑ Poole, Matthew. "Alienation of Affection in Mississippi". MS Poole. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  12. ↑ "The millionaire who charmed the plumber's wife". TODAY.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  13. ↑ "ABQJournal Biz: Alienation of affections tort mostly inapplicable in N.M." www.abqjournal.com. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
  14. 1 2 "Alienation of Affection & Criminal Conversation". Rice Law PLLC. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
  15. ↑ GOMSTYN, Alice (2010-03-22). "Wife Wins $9 Million From Husband's Alleged Mistress". ABC News. Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-23.
  16. ↑ "After jilted spouse wins $8.8M in alienation of affection lawsuit, we look at 3 NC cases". newsobserver. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  17. ↑ "Not Your Average Cat Fight: Alienation of Affection Pays $30 Million". Rice Law. 2011-05-01. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  18. 1 2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-13 (2010), (available at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H1110v7.pdf Retrieved 23-3-2010)
  19. ↑ CBS report, June 18, 2003
  20. ↑ (broken link) [ permanent dead link ] at The Sun News of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
  21. ↑ "House Bill 1110 / Session Law 2009-400" Retrieved 23-3-2010
  22. ↑ "Alienation of affection law unconstitutional, Forsyth County judge rules". Winston-Salem Journal.
  23. ↑ Eugene Volkh. "The First Amendment protects a right to engage in adultery?". The Washington Post.
  24. ↑ Malecek v. Williams 804 S.E.2d 592 (2017). FindLaw. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  25. 1 2 "Despite controversy, 'alienation of affection' cases still filed in South Dakota". Argus Leader. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  26. ↑ "S.D. Court Says Insurance Does Not Cover Lawsuit on Wife Stealing". Insurance Journal. 2007-10-29. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  27. ↑ Elefant, Carolyn (February 13, 2007). "Homeowners' Insurance Not the Same as Homewreckers' Insurance". Legal Blog Watch. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  28. ↑ Smeath, Doug (2004-09-26). "Alienated spouses can sue". DeseretNews.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  29. ↑ "Court upholds decision in alienation of affection case". Daily Herald. November 9, 2002. p. A8. Retrieved March 1, 2019.
  30. ↑ "Ex-Husband Fails in Suit Against Polygamists". Religion News Blog. 2003-02-20. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
  31. ↑ "Business | Ex-Wife Says Sting Caused On-Job Affair -- Utah Agency Blamed For Break-Up | Seattle Times Newspaper". community.seattletimes.nwsource.com. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.