Heart balm statutes are state laws that stripped courts of the authority to hear lawsuits over broken engagements, destroyed marriages, and similar romantic grievances. Indiana passed the first one in 1935, most states followed over the next few decades, and today only a handful of jurisdictions still allow any version of these claims. If you are in one of the states that abolished them, you generally cannot sue a former fiancé for calling off a wedding or a third party for the end of your marriage, no matter how badly you were treated.
What the Statutes Abolished
Before these laws existed, four separate claims let people take romantic wrongs to court. Heart balm statutes typically wipe out all four by name.
Breach of promise to marry treated an accepted proposal as a binding contract. If one person called off the engagement without a reason the court considered valid, the other could sue for lost economic security, social embarrassment, and emotional suffering. Proof usually came from witnesses or letters showing a clear proposal and acceptance.
Alienation of affection let a married person sue a third party for destroying the marriage. The plaintiff had to show genuine love existed before the interference and that the defendant’s deliberate conduct caused that affection to disappear. Infidelity was not required; a meddling in-law could be a target just as easily as a romantic rival.
Criminal conversation was narrower and more mechanical. A spouse only had to prove a valid marriage existed and that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the other spouse.1Legal Information Institute. Criminal Conversation Tort Whether the marriage had been happy was irrelevant. The sexual act was the wrong.
Seduction originally let a father sue a man who had sexual intercourse with his unmarried daughter under a false promise, usually a dishonest offer of marriage. The claim compensated the father for the family’s shame. It was tied openly to older ideas about women as property, and it was usually the first of the four claims states eliminated.
How the Statutes Work
The movement began in the early 1930s after high-profile cases showed a clear pattern: wealthy defendants were paying large settlements just to keep embarrassing allegations out of court. Lawmakers concluded the threat of litigation was more valuable than the claims themselves and started abolishing them.
The statutory language tends to be blunt. New York’s Civil Rights Law Section 80-a declares that the rights of action for alienation of affection, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry “are abolished” and that no act done in the state can give rise to any such claim.2New York State Senate. New York Civil Rights Law 80-A – Causes of Action for Alienation of Affections, Criminal Conversation, Seduction and Breach of Contract to Marry Abolished California’s Civil Code Section 43.5 takes the same approach, listing all four torts and stating flatly that no cause of action arises for any of them.3California Legislative Information. California Code Civ – Section 43.5
States that abolished these claims later usually protected pending cases. When Illinois eliminated alienation of affection, criminal conversation, and breach of promise in its 99th General Assembly, the statute specified that anyone whose claim had already accrued before the effective date could still pursue it, but no new action could be filed for conduct occurring afterward.4Illinois General Assembly. SB0057enr 99th General Assembly
A common question is whether a plaintiff can get around the statute by relabeling the claim. Courts in heart balm states generally see through this. A broken-engagement claim repackaged as fraud, or alienation of affection restyled as intentional infliction of emotional distress, is typically dismissed.
States That Still Allow These Lawsuits
A small group of states continue to recognize at least one amatory tort, and the list keeps shrinking.
North Carolina
North Carolina is the most active venue by a wide margin, and juries there have returned multimillion-dollar verdicts in alienation of affection and criminal conversation cases. State law imposes three key limits: the defendant’s conduct must have occurred before the couple physically separated with the intent that the separation be permanent, the lawsuit must be filed within three years of the defendant’s last wrongful act, and the claim can only be brought against an individual rather than a business or organization.5North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 52 The state’s Court of Appeals has rejected constitutional challenges to both torts.
Mississippi
Mississippi still recognizes alienation of affection, and its scope is broader than many people assume. Courts there have applied it not just to adultery but to interference from any source that destroys marital affection.6Mississippi College Law Review. Love in Vain – The Social Value of Mississippi’s Alienation of Affection in Protecting Marriage A bill to abolish the tort was introduced in the state legislature but did not pass.
South Dakota
South Dakota retains its alienation of affection statute, updated in 2002 to apply in a gender-neutral manner. The plaintiff must prove genuine love existed in the marriage before the interference, that an outside relationship destroyed it, and that the defendant’s conduct caused the loss.
Recent Changes
Two jurisdictions moved against these claims recently. New Mexico’s Supreme Court abolished alienation of affection by overturning a 1923 precedent that had first recognized the tort there.7New Mexico Courts. New Mexico Supreme Court Issues Opinion Abolishing Lawsuits for Alienation of Affections Utah followed in March 2026, when the governor signed S.B. 109 eliminating the right of action. That law takes effect in May 2027, so claims based on conduct before that date may still proceed.8Utah Legislature. S.B. 109 Alienation of Affection Amendments
Defenses Where These Claims Survive
In states that still allow alienation of affection or criminal conversation, several defenses tend to be strongest.
- The marriage was already dead. If the plaintiff cannot show genuine love existed before the defendant entered the picture, the claim fails at its foundation.
- Post-separation conduct. In North Carolina, no act by the defendant after the couple physically separated with the intent to stay apart can support a claim.5North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 52
- Statute of limitations. Most states that still recognize these torts impose a three-year filing deadline measured from the defendant’s last wrongful act.
- Connivance. If the plaintiff actually encouraged or set up the affair, the defendant can argue the plaintiff consented to the very conduct now complained about.
Engagement Rings Are Not Covered
Heart balm statutes block lawsuits over emotional harm, but they do not stop someone from recovering tangible property given in anticipation of a marriage that never happened. Courts treat an engagement ring as a conditional gift: it becomes the recipient’s property for good only once the marriage takes place. If the wedding is called off, the condition fails and the donor can seek return of the ring.
States split on how fault affects the outcome. The majority rule is no-fault: the ring goes back to the giver regardless of who ended the engagement. A minority of states examine fault, letting the recipient keep the ring if the giver caused the breakup and requiring return if the recipient did. A small number of states treat the ring as an irrevocable gift the moment it is given.
These disputes are typically filed as replevin actions, a proceeding designed to recover personal property. The plaintiff has to show the gift was tied to the marriage rather than an unconditional present.
Tax Consequences of Any Recovery
If you do win or settle one of these claims in a state that still allows them, the IRS takes a significant share. The Internal Revenue Code excludes damages for personal physical injuries from gross income but explicitly states that emotional distress does not qualify as a physical injury or physical sickness.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 104 – Compensation for Injuries or Sickness Amatory tort damages compensate for destroyed marital happiness or the humiliation of adultery, not for physical injuries, so most of a settlement or judgment is taxable as ordinary income.10Internal Revenue Service. 11Legal Information Institute. Rule 11 – Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions Filing a claim a state statute has flatly abolished, without a serious argument that the statute should be overturned, violates that certification. Sanctions can include orders to pay the opposing party’s attorney fees, monetary penalties paid to the court, or nonmonetary directives, and the financial penalty generally falls on the attorney rather than the client. State courts have similar rules. The practical effect is that trying to dress a heart balm claim in different legal clothing carries real risk for the lawyer involved.