Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title. Add: work. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were actually parameter name changes. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from cached copy of User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox4 | via #UCB_webform_linked 359/4696 |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#cbsnews.com/stories |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Legal term whereby a third-party is blamed for the breakdown of a personal relationship}}
{{Tort law}}
'''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.<ref name="edition.cnn.com">{{cite web |author=
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.
Line 20 ⟶ 21:
== Australia ==
Alienation of affection actions in Australia stopped being [[good law]] since 1975, with the passing of the [[Family Law Act 1975]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.
== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/3998/index.do|title=Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search|first=Supreme Court of|last=Canada|date=January 1, 2001|website=scc-csc.lexum.com}}</ref> 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
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 (state)|New York]] with legislation in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many [[U.S. state]]s in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states, including New York<ref name="NYLaw">N.Y. Civil Rights
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 [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=15581990677146317828&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 ''Russo v. Sutton''], 422 SE 2d 750 (1992), abolishing the [[heart balm]] action for alienation of affection.
Line 41 ⟶ 42:
=== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abqjournal.com/biz/052216110944biz04-05-10.htm|title=ABQJournal Biz: Alienation of affections tort mostly inapplicable in N.M.|website=
=== 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.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|title=Alienation of Affection & Criminal Conversation|url=http://www.ricefamilylaw.com/family/alienation-of-affection.htm|publisher=Rice Law PLLC|
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.<ref name="ncga.state.nc.us">[[North Carolina General Assembly|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)</ref>
The [[North Carolina General Assembly|North Carolina legislature]] has repeatedly had bills to abolish the tort introduced, and declined to do so.<ref>[
{{quote|'''§ 52-13. Procedures in causes of action for alienation of affection and criminal conversation.'''
Line 74 ⟶ 75:
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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Alienation of affection law unconstitutional, Forsyth County judge rules|url=http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/alienation-of-affection-law-unconstitutional-forsyth-county-judge-rules/article_bf87e30a-f32e-11e3-8ef6-0017a43b2370.html|publisher=Winston-Salem Journal}}</ref><ref>{{cite
In 2017 the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in a 3-0 decision to uphold the
=== South Dakota ===
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 surgery|orthopedic surgeon]] from [[Las Vegas]] had enticed the man's wife into an affair and had broken up their marriage.<ref name=":1" />
Line 88 ⟶ 89:
=== 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<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.deseretnews.com/article/595094081/Alienated-spouses-can-sue.html|title=Alienated spouses can sue|last=Smeath|first=Doug|date=2004-09-26|website=DeseretNews.com|language=en|access-date=2019-02-28}}</ref> The same court confirmed alienation of affections as a cause of action in 2002.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/court-upholds-decision-in-alienation-of-affection-case/article_54374063-8f7c-563c-9dd5-be28871f08db.html|title=Court upholds decision in alienation of affection case
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<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.religionnewsblog.com/2413/ex-husband-fails-in-suit-against-polygamists|title=Ex-Husband Fails in Suit Against Polygamists|date=2003-02-20|website=Religion News Blog|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-28}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990315&slug=2949597|title=Business {{!}} Ex-Wife Says Sting Caused On-Job Affair
== References ==
| |||