Question: My husband has worked for a large electrical contractor for 15 years of our 20 plus year marriage. The owner of the company passed away two years ago, leaving his company and most of his assets to his third wife – 18 years his junior -- to whom he had been married for less than five years. Needless to say, his children sued, but they finally got some sort of settlement.

Since the owner died, my husband has spent more and more time at work. He told me that he would be making a lot more money, but had to help the weeping widow with the business because she didn’t have experience in the business with her husband, or any other business for that matter. After the fiasco with the children was settled, my husband received a raise and a promotion. But his time at the office continued to increase to include Saturdays and sometimes Sundays. He was never home. I hired a private investigator who followed my husband and the weeping widow to a motel out on the Interstate on three successive Saturdays.

I told my husband to leave and I hired a lawyer. When we got to court, my husband’s pay had been reduced. I know he is still seeing her and that she is manipulating my husband’s pay so I won’t get what our children and I need. I asked about suing her, and my lawyer told me that alienation of affections suits had been abolished in my state. It seems to me that it would be better to be able to sue a person who broke up your home than to stand in the soup line.

Answer: As of mid 2007 when we last checked, only six states still allow “heartbalm” or alienation of affection lawsuits, namely Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.
In fact, a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal or abolish the Mississippi alienation of affections law, allowing the three quarters of a million dollar verdict a husband was awarded against his wife’s wealthy paramour to stand.

Generally speaking, with proof or admission of adultery in one of these six states, an injured spouse can sue for damages due for not only economic loss, but also loss of companionship, love and affection, and even sexual relations. And, by not hearing the case, it is probably safe to say that the United States Supreme Court did not buy into arguments that these laws are unconstitutional or antiquated.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not intervene “in the interest of protecting the marriage relationship and providing a remedy for intentional conduct which causes a loss of consortium.” The Court went on to say that “Alienation of affections is the only available avenue to provide redress for a spouse who has suffered loss and injury to his or her marital relationship against the third party who, through persuasion, enticement, or inducement, caused or contributed to the abandonment of the marriage and/or the loss of affections by active interference.”

Bottom Line: Especially in today’s “iffy” economy, we agree with the Supreme Court that if a state espouses its desire to protect the marriage contract, there should be remedies available if that contract is breached by an interloper.