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 citededit
Brode, Patrick (2002). Courted and Abandoned: Seduction in Canadian Law. ISBN9780802037503.
Ontario Law Reform Commission (1969). Report on Family Law, Part I: Torts.
^ ab"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[.]
^ abSinclair, M. B. W. (1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman" (PDF). Law and Inequality: 34.
^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.
^ ab"Avoidance of the Incidence of the Anti-Heartbalm Statutes". Columbia Law Review. 52 (2): 242–257. February 1952. doi:10.2307/1119133. JSTOR 1119133.
^ ab"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 law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
heartbalm, tort, common, tradition, heartbalm, tort, heartbalm, action, civil, action, that, person, bring, seek, monetary, compensation, disruption, romantic, marital, relationship, heartbalm, statute, statute, forbidding, such, actions, schematic, depiction,. 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 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 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 editBrode Patrick 2002 Courted and Abandoned Seduction in Canadian Law ISBN 9780802037503 Ontario Law Reform Commission 1969 Report on Family Law Part I Torts See also editHeart balm German law References edit a b 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 a b Sinclair M B W 1987 Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman PDF Law and Inequality 34 Report on Family Law pp 86 87 a b 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 Retrieved 2020 01 31 a b Avoidance of the Incidence of the Anti Heartbalm Statutes Columbia Law Review 52 2 242 257 February 1952 doi 10 2307 1119133 JSTOR 1119133 Brode 2002 p 186 a b 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 nbsp This law related article is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Heartbalm tort amp oldid 1215689562, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
