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]
The teminology in this field is somewhat confusing, since a heartbalm statute abolishes lawsuits that were known as heartbalm suits[.]
The number of lawsuits brought with these "heart balm" acts were minimal, and allowed limited damages.