Legal Definitions - anti-heartbalm statute

An anti-heartbalm statute is a law that abolishes or significantly restricts certain types of lawsuits that were historically allowed under what were known as "heartbalm" actions. These traditional lawsuits, which emerged from common law, allowed individuals to sue for emotional distress, reputational damage, or financial loss resulting from perceived romantic or marital misconduct.

The most common "heartbalm" actions that anti-heartbalm statutes target include:

• Breach of promise to marry: Suing someone for breaking off an engagement.
• Alienation of affection: Suing a third party (e.g., a lover, friend, or family member) for causing a spouse to lose affection for their partner.
• Criminal conversation: Suing a third party for having sexual intercourse with one's spouse.

Anti-heartbalm statutes were enacted by many states, primarily in the mid-20th century, due to concerns that these types of lawsuits were often used for blackmail, extortion, or to air private grievances in court, rather than to genuinely compensate for harm. They were seen as encouraging frivolous litigation and invading personal privacy.

Here are some examples illustrating how an anti-heartbalm statute applies:

• Example 1 (Breach of Promise to Marry): Sarah and Mark are engaged to be married. A month before their wedding, Mark decides he no longer wants to proceed and calls off the engagement. Sarah is deeply hurt and feels publicly humiliated. In a state with an anti-heartbalm statute, Sarah would be prevented from suing Mark for "breach of promise to marry" to seek damages for her emotional distress or the perceived damage to her reputation. While she might still be able to recover actual financial losses directly related to the wedding preparations (like non-refundable venue deposits), the statute specifically bars claims for the emotional "heartbalm" of a broken engagement.

• Example 2 (Alienation of Affection): David and Emily are married. Emily begins an affair with Alex, and eventually, she leaves David for Alex. David is devastated and believes Alex intentionally interfered with his marriage, causing Emily to lose affection for him. In a state that has an anti-heartbalm statute, David would not be able to sue Alex for "alienation of affection," even if he could prove that Alex deliberately pursued Emily and contributed to the breakdown of his marriage. The statute prevents such a lawsuit from being filed, regardless of David's emotional suffering or the perceived malicious intent.

• Example 3 (Criminal Conversation): Michael and Lisa are married. Lisa has a one-night stand with Chris. When Michael discovers the infidelity, he is profoundly hurt and feels his marriage has been violated. In a jurisdiction with an anti-heartbalm statute, Michael would be unable to sue Chris for "criminal conversation" to seek monetary damages for the act of adultery. The statute specifically bars this type of action, aiming to prevent courts from being used to litigate private marital disputes and to avoid the potential for extortion that such lawsuits once presented.