In North Carolina, there is still a provision that permits a divorced spouse to enter a courtroom, name their partner’s extramarital partner as a defendant, and seek millions of dollars in damages for the resulting emotional and interpersonal devastation. When most people hear about this, they think it ceased decades ago. It didn’t. In a few American states, the alienation of affection claim—known in earlier legal literature as a “heart balm” tort—remains a viable legal action. In North Carolina, it is used frequently enough and has enough financial impact to be taken seriously by family law attorneys.
It is based on a legal theory with a specific logic from the nineteenth century. It is argued that a loving marriage is an agreement having economic, familial, and emotional worth. The remaining spouse has experienced a real, measurable loss when a third party purposefully disrupts that agreement by luring one spouse away through manipulation or seduction. A remedy ought to be provided by the law. The civil responsibility structure, which allows the affair partner to be sued directly rather than as part of the divorce proceedings, is what distinguishes this from merely accusing someone of having an affair. The damages available are sufficiently harsh to be truly eye-catching.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Legal Name | Alienation of Affection (also “heart balm” tort) |
| Plaintiff | Jilted spouse |
| Defendant | Third party (usually affair partner) — not the cheating spouse |
| Active U.S. States | North Carolina (most active), Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah |
| Proof Requirements | Loving marriage existed; third party deliberately interfered; interference caused breakdown |
| Evidence Used | Text messages, social media, emails, witnesses |
| Record Judgment | $30 million (2011 North Carolina case) |
| Notable 2019 Award | $750,000 — North Carolina |
| 2026 High-Profile Case | Lawsuit involving former Senator Kyrsten Sinema |
| Key Defense 1 | Marriage was already broken before third party involvement |
| Key Defense 2 | Defendant was unaware the spouse was married |
| Distinct From | Divorce proceedings — focuses solely on third-party liability |
In order to prove these cases, it is necessary to show that the marriage was loving and functional prior to the third party’s arrival, that the defendant’s actions were intentional rather than accidental, and that the interference was the direct cause of the loss of affection rather than just a coincidence that happened alongside a marriage that was already failing for other reasons.
The majority of defenses focus on this final component, claiming that before the defendant entered the scene, the marriage was essentially finished and the love had already left. In these situations, parties attempt to rebuild the emotional history of a relationship for an absent jury through the use of text messages, social media exchanges, witness testimony, and financial documents.
Successful cases of alienation of affection result in significant damages. A 2011 North Carolina ruling resulted in a $30 million award, which is a sum that needs to be processed—thirty million dollars given by one person to another for ruining a marriage. $750,000 was earned in a 2019 case. These symbolic payouts are not the result of legal technicalities.
These are actual financial repercussions that have occasionally bankrupted defendants and led some legal observers to wonder if the punishment is appropriate for the crime, especially in situations where the affair partner might not have been fully aware of the circumstances surrounding their involvement.
At a time when most people believed this legal category only existed in historical law textbooks, the 2026 case involving former Senator Kyrsten Sinema brought it back into the spotlight. Although the case’s details are still being worked out, its national news coverage serves as an example of how alienation of affection claims serve as both legal and public statements.
This allows the plaintiff to claim that what happened to them was a civil wrong deserving of formal redress in a setting where the details are made public. During the 20th century, the majority of American states abolished these claims, viewing them as holdovers from a legal past that saw marriage as a property transaction and affection as something that could be easily taken.
The states that kept them did so for a variety of reasons, including political, cultural, and legislative inertia. As a result, they are now forced to maintain an active legal framework for a cause of action that the majority of the nation views as antiquated. Due to the state’s ongoing alienation of affection laws, North Carolina has become a popular location for these lawsuits. Plaintiffs deliberately choose to file there since the state’s judicial system is still functional in ways that it isn’t elsewhere.
What these cases actually achieve beyond cash redistribution is an issue worth considering. Regardless of the outcome, the marriage is ended. A judgment does not bring back the lost affection. Plaintiffs frequently express a need for acknowledgment—a formal, public, legally enforceable acknowledgement that they were harmed, that the third party is accountable, and that the law views the harm as actual rather than merely regrettable. In the states that haven’t yet resolved the issue by completely eliminating the claim, courts are frequently asked to decide, one case at a time, whether a civil tort is the appropriate tool for that kind of emotional reckoning.
