Social: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 forbidding such actions.[1]
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 remaining traditional heartbalm torts (excluding loss of consortium) by statute in 1970.[4]
In the United States, as of 2016, seven states still allow heartbalm actions: Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, 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.
- Ontario Law Reform Commission (1969). Report on Family Law, Part I: Torts. https://archive.org/details/reportonfamilyla01onta.
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 "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[.]"
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Sinclair, M. B. W. (1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman" (PDF). Law and Inequality: 34. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2272.
- ↑ Report on Family Law, pp. 86-87.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brode 2002, p. 187.
- ↑ Tori Telfer (2018-02-13). "How the "Heart Balm Racket" Convinced America That Women Were Up to No Good". Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-heart-balm-racket-convinced-america-women-were-no-good-180968144/.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Avoidance of the Incidence of the Anti-Heartbalm Statutes". Columbia Law Review 52 (2): 242–257. February 1952. doi:10.2307/1119133.
- ↑ Brode 2002, p. 186.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Illinois Repeals Heart Balm Acts for Alienation of Affection and More". 2016-04-12. https://www.gardilaw.com/illinois-repeals-heart-balm-acts-for-alienation-of-affection-and-more/. "The number of lawsuits brought with these “heart balm” acts were minimal, and allowed limited damages."
 |  |
