Heartbalm tort

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 abolishing such actions.[1]

A schematic depiction of the tort of criminal conversation from 1807.

Heartbalm actions in the United States typically include seduction, criminal conversation, alienation of affection, and breach of promise to marry.[1] Of these, criminal conversation and alienation of affection are marital torts, originally restricted to husbands but in many states later made available to spouses regardless of gender.[2] Seduction and breach of promise are nonmarital torts.[2]

In England and other common law jurisdictions, additional heartbalm actions were traditionally recognized, such as enticement and wrongful harbouring (tortious refusal to allow a husband to visit a wife who has left him).[3] A claim for damages based on loss of consortium is also sometimes considered a heartbalm action in England and elsewhere.[4]

In the United States, heartbalm actions were widespread until high-profile stories in the early 20th century about heartbalm claims being abused for blackmail and extortion led to calls for repeal.[5] The first state to abolish all heartbalm actions was Indiana, with “An Act to promote public morals” in 1935.[6] By 1952, 16 more states had followed its example.[6] Many states that abolished other heartbalm torts retained the tort of seduction, however; of the ten states that had abolished heartbalm actions by 1938, four allowed minors to sue for seduction and three more kept the tort of seduction intact.[7]

Following a report by the Law Reform Committee in 1963, England abolished all of the traditional heartbalm torts (excluding loss of consortium) by statute in 1970.[4]

In the United States, as of 2016, eight states still allow heartbalm actions: Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.[8] However, such actions are uncommon even where they are still allowed.[8]

Works cited
  • Brode, Patrick (2002). Courted and Abandoned: Seduction in Canadian Law. ISBN 9780802037503.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Ontario Law Reform Commission (1969). Report on Family Law, Part I: Torts.
gollark: I've looked at a bit of the spec, and it seems like it's about the same difficulty, if possibly harder using certain techniques.
gollark: That seems like a ridiculous overestimate. Explain.
gollark: Messagepack seems perfectly fine.
gollark: Msgpack + records extension.
gollark: No, have no configuration.

See also

References
  1. "heartbalm statute". Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.). p. 740. The teminology in this field is somewhat confusing, since a heartbalm statute abolishes lawsuits that were known as heartbalm suits[.]
  2. Sinclair, M. B. W. (1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman" (PDF). Law and Inequality: 34.
  3. Report on Family Law, pp. 86-87.
  4. Brode 2002, p. 187.
  5. Tori Telfer (2018-02-13). "How the "Heart Balm Racket" Convinced America That Women Were Up to No Good". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2020-01-31.
  6. "Avoidance of the Incidence of the Anti-Heartbalm Statutes". Columbia Law Review. 52 (2): 242–257. February 1952. doi:10.2307/1119133. JSTOR 1119133.
  7. Brode 2002, p. 186.
  8. "Illinois Repeals Heart Balm Acts for Alienation of Affection and More". 2016-04-12. Retrieved 2020-01-31. The number of lawsuits brought with these “heart balm” acts were minimal, and allowed limited damages.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.