Five states still recognize alienation of affection lawsuits as of 2026: Hawaii, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. These claims let a married person sue a third party whose deliberate interference caused the loss of a spouse’s love and companionship. The list has been shrinking. New Mexico’s Supreme Court abolished the tort in January 2026, and a bill pending in Utah would do the same there.
Where the Claim Still Exists
North Carolina
North Carolina is the most active jurisdiction for these lawsuits and the only one with a statute that spells the tort out in detail. State law authorizes both alienation of affection and the related tort of criminal conversation, sets a three-year statute of limitations running from the defendant’s last wrongful act, and bars claims based on conduct that occurred after the couple physically separated with the intent to stay apart.1North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 52 Section 52-13 Juries have returned substantial verdicts. One widely reported case produced $2.2 million in compensatory damages and $6.6 million in punitive damages against a defendant who had an affair with a married woman.
Mississippi
Mississippi recognizes the tort through common law rather than a statute. Its courts have repeatedly declined to abolish it, treating it as a legitimate remedy for a spouse whose marriage was undermined by a third party. The filing window is three years, and Mississippi courts classify the claim as a latent injury, with the clock beginning when the loss of affection is “finally accomplished.”
South Dakota
South Dakota codifies the concept by prohibiting the enticement of a spouse away from a marriage and the seduction of a husband or wife.2South Dakota Legislature. South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 20-9 The state’s general personal injury statute of limitations gives plaintiffs three years to file.3South Dakota Legislature. South Dakota Codified Laws 15-2-14
Hawaii
Hawaii recognizes alienation of affection through its common law tradition. The general tort statute of limitations applies, giving plaintiffs two years to file.
Utah
Utah also recognizes the tort through common law, and the residual civil statute of limitations gives plaintiffs roughly four years. Utah’s status is unsettled. A bill introduced in the 2026 legislative session, SB 109, would enact a new statute stating that “there is no right of action for alienation of affections.”4Utah Legislature. SB 109 Alienation of Affection Amendments If the bill becomes law, Utah drops off the list.
Recent Changes to the Map
New Mexico was on this list until January 2026, when its Supreme Court unanimously abolished the tort in Butterworth v. Jackson. The court overturned a 1923 precedent, writing that the claim’s “inherently dehumanizing nature” treats a spouse’s affections as property and presumes the spouse “has no agency regarding to whom they give their affections.” Chief Justice Thomson concluded that a century of legal and social change “robs the tort of any lingering justification in the law.”5New Mexico Courts: Administrative Office of the Courts. NM Supreme Court Issues Opinion Abolishing Lawsuits for Alienation of Affections
The New Mexico ruling fits a pattern that stretches back decades. Illinois eliminated heart-balm actions in 2016, and most states abolished these claims during the second half of the twentieth century, following an American Law Institute recommendation dating to 1935 that cited privacy concerns and the risk of blackmail. North Carolina and Mississippi courts have shown no signs of following suit.
What a Plaintiff Has to Prove
Winning one of these cases requires proving three things, and courts hold plaintiffs to a real evidentiary burden on each.
Genuine love and affection had to exist in the marriage before the defendant’s interference. This is where many claims fail. If the marriage was already cold or hostile, there was nothing left for a third party to destroy. Plaintiffs typically build this element with testimony from friends and family, photographs, and communications showing the couple was affectionate before the interference began.
The defendant had to take deliberate actions that a reasonable person would expect to damage the marriage.6Cornell Law Institute. Alienation of Affections Incidental or accidental contact is not enough. Courts want evidence of intentional pursuit: romantic messages, planned meetings, gifts, or similar conduct. Phone records, text messages, emails, social media, and location data now do much of the heavy lifting.
The defendant’s actions had to actually cause the loss of affection. The interference does not need to be the sole cause, but it must have been a controlling or significant factor in the breakdown.6Cornell Law Institute. Alienation of Affections Courts look closely at the timeline: was the marriage healthy before the defendant appeared, and did it deteriorate afterward?
Common Defenses
The strongest defense is usually that the marriage was already falling apart before the defendant entered the picture. Credible evidence of long-standing arguments, emotional detachment, or prior infidelity makes it very hard to prove a third party destroyed the marriage.
A defendant can also argue that the plaintiff’s spouse made an independent decision to leave or to pursue the affair. The tort punishes interference, not availability. If the spouse was the pursuer and the defendant was essentially passive, causation weakens substantially.
Timing is a defense in its own right. In North Carolina, conduct that occurred after the couple physically separated with the intent to stay apart cannot support a claim, giving a defendant who only became involved post-separation a complete defense.1North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 52 Section 52-13 In every recognizing state, missing the statute of limitations is fatal regardless of the underlying merits.
Damages That Can Be Recovered
Awards fall into two categories, and courts follow no formula for either.
Compensatory damages cover the actual harm the plaintiff suffered. Juries consider the quality of the marriage before the interference, the severity of emotional distress, financial losses tied to the breakup (divorce costs, lost household income, therapy), and the lasting impact on the plaintiff’s life. Because so much of the harm is subjective, similar-looking cases can produce awards that differ by millions of dollars.
Punitive damages become available when the defendant’s conduct was especially brazen or malicious. These awards punish rather than compensate, and they can dwarf the compensatory portion. North Carolina has seen combined verdicts exceeding $8 million in a single case.
Filing When the Parties Are in Different States
Interstate cases are where these lawsuits get complicated. The affair might have happened in one state, the couple might live in another, and the defendant might reside in a third. Because only five states recognize the tort, jurisdiction often decides whether the case can be brought at all.
A plaintiff generally needs to file in a state that recognizes the claim, and that state’s court must also have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Long-arm statutes typically allow jurisdiction over a nonresident who committed a tort “in whole or in part” within the state. If the affair involved travel to a recognizing state, or significant conduct there, courts have found that enough. Mississippi courts have held that a defendant who engaged in sexual activity within the state had availed herself of the jurisdiction.
Due process still limits how far a court can reach. Even when minimum contacts exist, a court must consider whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable, weighing the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, and the availability of an alternative forum. When the affair was conducted mostly through digital communication, jurisdiction becomes harder to establish, since courts generally require more than passive online contact. As a practical matter, a plaintiff whose spouse’s affair occurred entirely in a state that does not recognize the tort will struggle to find a court willing to hear the case.
Insurance and Collectability
Defendants often assume homeowners or personal liability insurance will pay for their defense. It almost never does. Standard liability policies cover accidental injuries and exclude conduct “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured,” and pursuing a romantic relationship with someone’s spouse is intentional by definition.
That leaves the defendant paying their own attorney and personally exposed to any judgment. Defense costs alone can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Plaintiffs should keep the flip side in mind: a large verdict may be uncollectible if the defendant lacks assets, since there is no insurer standing behind the check.
Taxes on a Recovery
Winning or settling one of these cases produces a tax bill. Federal law excludes from gross income only damages received “on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness,” and the statute expressly provides that emotional distress does not qualify as a physical injury.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 104 Compensation for Injuries or Sickness Because alienation of affection is about emotional harm rather than physical injury, the IRS treats most of the recovery as taxable income.
Punitive damages are taxable in nearly all circumstances.8Internal Revenue Service. Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments A $1 million verdict can leave the plaintiff owing federal and state income tax on the full amount. The structure of a settlement, including lump sum versus periodic payments and how the total is allocated among claims, can meaningfully change the tax outcome, so bring in a tax professional before signing anything.
A Note on Criminal Conversation
Several of the same states also allow a companion claim called criminal conversation. Despite the name, it is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge, and it is essentially the civil claim for adultery: it lets a spouse sue a third party who had sexual intercourse with their husband or wife.9Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. Criminal Conversation Tort The key difference is proof. Alienation of affection does not require a sexual relationship, only deliberate interference that destroyed the marriage, which can come from a romantic partner, a relative, or a counselor. Criminal conversation requires proof of intercourse. In states that recognize both, plaintiffs commonly file them together, as North Carolina’s statute expressly contemplates.1North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 52 Section 52-13