Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:22:59.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alienation of Affection Torts: Love ’Em or Leave ’Em?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2007

Elizabeth Ellen Gordon
Elizabeth Ellen Gordon
Affiliation:
Kennesaw State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The alienation of affection tort, which allows a plaintiff to sue a third party for interfering with the plaintiff's marriage, has been disparaged by many as a relic of women's former status as their husband's property. Despite its archaic roots, the tort as it operates today is in many ways quite modern and addresses some of the problems, expectations, and obstacles of modern American marriage. Furthermore, it fits in with developments in tort law toward more actions for nontangible, nonfinancial damages. Given the tort's history, one might assume that it benefits men, but women also benefit from and use this tort, as demonstrated in a case study of North Carolina, a jurisdiction where the tort is frequently pursued. In its current form, the alienation tort can be reconciled with feminist theory and with women's interests, and should not be abolished without reconsideration.

“Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.”

Book of Common Prayer 1789

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 475 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

BeVier, Lillian R. 1990. “Reconsidering Inducement”. Virginia Law Review 76 (August): 877–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Patrick. 1997. “What is a Family Worth?” http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0811.html (August 11, 1997).Google Scholar
Buck, Stuart. 2003. “Alienation of Affection”. The Buck Stops Here. http://www.stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_stuartbuck_archive.html (June 21, 2003).Google Scholar
Buss, David M., Larsen, Randy J., Westen, Drew, and Semmelroth, Jennifer. 1992. “Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology”. Psychological Science 3 (July): 251–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buunk, Bram P., Angleitner, Alois, Oubaid, Viktor, and Buss, David M.. 1996. “Sex Differences in Jealousy in Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective: Tests from The Netherlands, Germany, and the United States”. Psychological Science 7(November): 359–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamallas, Martha. 1998. “The Architecture of Bias: Deep Structures in Tort Law”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (January): 463–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Robert A. 2005. “Law Leaves Jilted Lovers Out in the Cold”. Chicago Lawyer p. 16 1 (March).Google Scholar
Coombs, Mary. 1989. “Agency and Partnership: A Study of Breach of Promise Plaintiffs”. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 2 (Fall): 11–17.Google Scholar
Corbett, William. 2001. “A Somewhat Modest Proposal to Prevent Adultery and Save Families: Two Old Torts Looking for a New Career”. Arizona State Law Journal 33 (Winter): 985–1055.Google Scholar
Cossman, Brenda. 2005. “Sexual Expression: The New Politics of Adultery”. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 15 (1): 274–96.Google Scholar
Cotter, David M. 2005. “Current State of the Heart Balm Torts.” In Family Law Update, ed. Ronald L., Brown and Morgan, Laura W.. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Cramer, Robert E., Abraham, William T., Johnson, Lesley M., and Manning-Ryan, Barbara. 2001. “Gender Differences in Subjective Distress to Emotional and Sexual Infidelity: Evolutionary or Logical Inference Explanation?” Current Psychology 20 (Winter): 327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elrod, Linda D., and Spector, Robert G.. 2006. “A Review of the Year in Family Law: Parentage and Assisted Reproduction Problems Take Center Stage”. Family Law Quarterly 39 (Winter): 879.Google Scholar
Eriksson, Rebecca J. 1993. “Reconceptualizing Family Work”. Journal of Marriage and Family 55 (November): 875–87.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2006. “The Meaning of Marriage.” In Marriage Proposals: Questioning a Legal Status, ed. Bernstein, Anita. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenstein, Jeffrey Brian. 2004. “Sex, Lies and American Tort Law: The Love Triangle in Context”. Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law 5 (Spring): 723–61.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jois, Goutam U. 2006. “Marital Status as Property: Toward a New Jurisprudence for Gay Rights”. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 41 (Summer): 509–51.Google Scholar
Jones, Jill. 1998. “Fanning an Old Flame: Alienation of Affections and Criminal Conversation Revisited”. Pepperdine Law Review 26 (1): 61–88.Google Scholar
Kirn, Walter. 1998. “When Sex Is Not Really Having Sex”. Time. February 2. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,987741,00.html (June 26, 2006).Google Scholar
Koenig, Thomas, and Rustad, Michael. 1995. “His and Her Tort Reform: Gender Injustice in Disguise”. Washington Law Review 70 (January): 1–90.Google Scholar
Larson, Jane. 1993. “Women Understand So Little, They Call My Good Nature ‘Deceit’: A Feminist Rethinking of Seduction”. Columbia Law Review 93 (March): 374–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legislative Week in Review, 2001. UNC-TV. April 20. Transcript at http://www.unctv.org/legweek/transcript042001.html (June 20, 2007).Google Scholar
Leonard, James. 1985. “Cannon v. Miller: The Brief Death of Alienation of Affections and Criminal Conversation in North Carolina”. North Carolina Law Review 63 (August): 1317–28.Google Scholar
Levit, Nancy. 1992. “Ethereal Torts”. George Washington Law Review 61 (November): 136–92.Google Scholar
McCooin, Susan. 1998. “Law and Sex Status: Implementing the Concept of Sexual Property”. Women's Rights Law Reporter 19 (Spring): 237–45.Google Scholar
Merkle, Erich R., and Richardson, Rhonda A.. 2000. “Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships.” Family Relations 49 (April): 187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Rachel F. 2000. “Law and Emotion, Love and Hate”. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 11:747–84.Google Scholar
Morgan, Laura. 1995. “Actions Against a Third Party for Torts Against Marriage Relation”. Divorce Litigation 7 (September): 181–91.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Bruce V. 2003. “Hey, That's My Wife! – The Tort of Alienation of Affection in Missouri”. Missouri Law Review 68 (Winter): 241–56.Google Scholar
Parker, Trent S., and Wampler, Karen. 2003. “How Bad Is It? Perceptions of the Relationship Impact of Different Types of Internet Sexual Activities”. Contemporary Family Therapy 25 (December): 415–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Richard B. 1996. “An Economic Re-Evaluation of the Consequences of Divorce”. American Sociological Review 61 (June): 528–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharr v. Beck. 2001. 147 N.C. App. 268; 554 S.E.2d 851 LexisNexis Academic (June 21, 2007).Google Scholar
Robinson, John P., and Godbey, Geoffrey. 1997. Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Rustin, John and Jere, Z. Royall. 2002. “Protecting Marriage: 10 Good Reasons to Preserve Meaningful Tort Laws”. North Carolina Family Policy Council. http://www.ncfamily.org/PolicyPapers/Findings%200206-Alienation.pdf (June 20, 2007).Google Scholar
S.B. v. S.J.B. 1992. 609 A.2d. 124, 126 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.) LexisNexis Academic (June 20, 2007).Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. 2000. “The Legal Construction of Norms: Social Norms and the Legal Regulation of Marriage”. Virginia Law Review 86 (November): 1901–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Jeffrey G. 2005. “Prenuptial Agreements: A New Reason to Revive an Old Rule”. Cleveland State Law Review 53 (3): 359–98.Google Scholar
Spragens, Thomas A. Jr. 2001. “The Bounds of Civic Morality”. The Responsive Community 11 (4): 41–7.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1996. “Social Norms and Social Roles”. Columbia Law Review 96 (May): 903–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvest, Flynn. 2004. “New Tort Rules for Unmarried Partners: The Enhanced Potential for Successful Loss of Consortium and NIED Claims by Same Sex Partners in New Mexico After Lozoya”. New Mexico Law Review 34 (Summer): 461–87.Google Scholar
Taylor, Meredith L. 1997. “North Carolina's Recognition of Tort Liability for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress During Marriage”. Wake Forest Law Review 32 (Winter): 1261–82.Google Scholar
Underwood, Heather, and Findlay, Bruce. 2004. “Internet Relationships and Their Impact on Primary Relationships”. Behaviour Change 21 (2): 127–41.Google Scholar
Vickery, Alan B. 1982. “Breach of Confidence: An Emerging Tort”. Columbia Law Review 82 (November): 1426–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore J. 1985. The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Whitty, Monica. 2003. “Pushing the Wrong Buttons: Men's and Women's Attitudes Towards Online and Offline Infidelity”. CyberPsychology & Behavior 6 (December): 569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitty, Monica. 2005. “The Realness of Cybercheating: Men's and Women's Representations of Unfaithful Internet Relationships”. Social Science Computer Review 23 (1): 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitty, Monica, and Gavin, J.. 2001. “Age/Sex/Location: Uncovering the Social Cues in the Development of Online Relationships”. CyberPsychology & Behavior 4 (October): 623–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiederman, Michael W., and Elizabeth Rice, Allgeier. 1993. “Gender Differences in Sexual Jealousy: Adaptionist or Social Learning Explanation?” Ethology and Sociobiology 14 (2): 115–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, W. Bradford, and Steven, L. Nock. 2006. “What's Love Got to Do with It? Equality, Equity, Commitment, and Women's Marital Quality”. Social Forces 84 (March): 1321–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Cheri L. 1994. “The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability”. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27 (Spring): 1367–415.Google Scholar
Woodward, William J. 1996. “Contractarians, Community, and the Tort of Interference with Contract”. Minnesota Law Review 80 (May): 1103–82.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett. 1994. “Symposium on Divorce and Feminist Legal Theory: Sex, Lies, and Dissipation: The Discourse of Fault in a No-Fault Era”. Georgetown Law Journal 82 (September): 2525–69.Google Scholar