Alienation of Affection in North Carolina: The Complete 2026 Guide

North Carolina family law · Updated October 2026

North Carolina is one of the last states where a husband or wife can sue the person they blame for the breakdown of a marriage. This guide explains how alienation of affection and criminal conversation claims work in 2026, what they are worth, how they are defended, and what a Davidson County jury’s verdict of about $850,000 on September 24, 2026 does and does not tell us.

By Christopher Adkins, attorney · Adkins Law, PLLC, Huntersville, NC · Updated October 1, 2026 · 39-minute read

Key takeaways

• Two separate civil claims. Alienation of affection targets conduct that destroyed the love in a marriage and does not require sex. Criminal conversation requires only a marriage and intercourse with a spouse before separation. Neither is a crime.
• The date of separation controls. Under G.S. 52-13, only conduct before separation creates liability, suit must be filed within three years of the defendant’s last act, and only an individual can be sued.
• The newest verdict. News outlets report that on September 24, 2026 a Davidson County jury awarded $800,000 for criminal conversation, $50,000 for alienation of affection and $1 in punitive damages on each claim. An appeal remains possible.
• Verdicts vary wildly. The awards charted below run from $65,000 to $30 million, and big ones are often vacated or never collected.
• Suing carries risk. In Ponder v. Been, the plaintiff ended up with a $1.5 million verdict against him.
• North Carolina is nearly alone. By 2026 surveys, only Hawaii, Mississippi and South Dakota still join it, and Utah has enacted a repeal that its enrolled bill dates to May 5, 2027.

On this page

1. The two claims in plain English
2. The September 2026 verdict: Hughes v. Cobb
3. What is alienation of affection?
4. What is criminal conversation?
5. G.S. 52-13 and the date of separation
6. Damages and notable verdicts
7. Collecting: bankruptcy and insurance
8. Defenses and the risks of suing
9. Suing someone in another state
10. Are these lawsuits constitutional?
11. Evidence and how a case unfolds
12. Divorce, alimony, custody and settlement
13. Which states still allow these suits
14. Repeal efforts in North Carolina
15. Huntersville and Lake Norman readers
16. If you think you have a claim
17. If you have been sued
18. Frequently asked questions
19. Sources

Alienation of affection and criminal conversation in plain English

If you live around Huntersville, Lake Norman or Charlotte and have just learned that your spouse was involved with someone else, you have probably run into two old-fashioned phrases: alienation of affection and criminal conversation. Lawyers call them “heart balm” torts. In most of the country they no longer exist. In North Carolina they are still filed, tried and appealed.

Both are civil lawsuits for money. Nobody goes to jail. The defendant is not your spouse. It is the third person.

How common are these suits? There is no official count. The “about 200 a year” figure that circulates online traces to a 2010 law-firm estimate quoted by ABC News, not to court statistics.

This guide is written for both sides: the spouse who was hurt, and the person who has been served or threatened.

The September 2026 verdict: Hughes v. Cobb in Davidson County

On September 24, 2026, a Davidson County Superior Court jury in Lexington returned a verdict against Jennifer Jo Cobb, a 53-year-old former NASCAR driver, in a suit brought by a Davidson County woman. That is according to reporting by WBTV, WCNC and Autoweek. Several outlets identify the plaintiff as Tracey Hughes. WBTV did not name her. Her husband is not a party to the lawsuit, and we do not name him here.

What the jury decided

$800,000

for criminal conversation, as reported

$50,000

for alienation of affection, as reported

$1 + $1

punitive damages: one dollar on each claim

$850,002

total of the reported amounts

According to those reports, the jury found the defendant liable on both claims. The accounts do not describe the verdict sheet in more detail.

How the case reached trial

Autoweek and WCNC report that the couple married in 2003 and separated in January 2021, and that the complaint was filed on January 5, 2024. WBTV reports that it sought more than $25,000 on each claim, plus punitive damages.

The defendant denied the allegations. In April 2024 she asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the North Carolina law is unconstitutional. Superior Court Judge Eric Morgan denied those requests in December 2024. Court-ordered mediation in January 2025 did not resolve the case. Trial ran from September 21 to 24, 2026.

Hughes v. Cobb: from complaint to verdict

Dates as reported by Autoweek, WCNC and WBTV. Spacing is not to scale.

What was alleged, and what the jury found

An allegation is one side’s claim. A verdict is a jury’s answer to specific legal questions. We keep the two apart.

Alleged in the complaint, as reported (the defendant denied these allegations)	Found by the jury, as reported
That the defendant intentionally pursued a relationship with the plaintiff’s husband over several months before the January 2021 separation (WBTV; Autoweek).	Liability for criminal conversation, with $800,000 in damages.
That it involved phone calls, text messages and meetings in North Carolina and other states during travel for racing (WBTV; Autoweek; WCNC).	Liability for alienation of affection, with $50,000 in damages.
That steps were taken to conceal the relationship (FOX 13; Heavy).	Punitive damages of $1 on each claim. Nothing more specific has been reported.

The verdict tells us the jury found the elements of each claim proved. It does not tell us which allegations the jurors accepted.

What is not yet known

• Whether a judgment has been entered. Heavy and Complex, citing other publications, report the defendant as saying the matter is not over and that judgment had not been entered. We could not review the original report.
• Post-trial motions and appeal. Autoweek and WCNC note that either side can file post-trial motions and that the defendant can appeal. No outlet we reviewed reports that a notice of appeal has been filed.
• Who tried the case. The reports we reviewed do not say which judge presided at trial or name the lawyers.

What the case teaches

1. These claims are alive. The refusal to dismiss on constitutional grounds is consistent with Malecek v. Williams, discussed below. And a verdict is not a check: see collecting a judgment.

2. The two claims ask different questions. No report explains why the criminal conversation figure is sixteen times the alienation figure, and we will not guess at the jurors’ reasoning. The law does tell us that criminal conversation has only two elements, a marriage and intercourse before separation, and the health of the marriage is no defense. Alienation of affection requires genuine affection, its loss, and the defendant as the controlling cause.

3. An open question about two separate awards. North Carolina appellate decisions treat the damages for these torts as so intertwined that a jury should ordinarily answer one compensatory question and one punitive question covering both (Sebastian v. Kluttz). Gray v. Hoover says an award on one claim is reduced by an award on the other when they are tried separately, and a footnote in Pharr v. Beck, 147 N.C. App. 268, 554 S.E.2d 851 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001), says that when separate damages issues are submitted the plaintiff recovers only the larger verdict. The news reports do not say whether this point was raised in Hughes v. Cobb. We note it only as an open legal question, not a prediction about this case.

4. One dollar in punitive damages is still a finding. Punitive damages require an aggravating factor proved by clear and convincing evidence, and the amount is left to the jury. Horner v. Byrnett, 132 N.C. App. 323, 511 S.E.2d 342 (1999), is the mirror image: $1 in compensatory damages and $85,000 in punitive damages for criminal conversation, upheld on appeal.

5. Time matters at both ends. The case took about two years and eight months from filing to verdict. The reported filing date also falls roughly three years after the reported separation. The reports do not say whether timing was contested, and we draw no conclusion about it. The general lesson is that the three-year limit leaves no room to wait.

This section reports only what named news outlets have published and what North Carolina law provides. These are real people and a real family. We express no view about anyone’s private conduct, and the case is not over.

What is alienation of affection in North Carolina?

Alienation of affection is a civil claim against a third party whose wrongful and malicious conduct destroyed or diminished the genuine love and affection in a marriage. It is judge-made law, now limited by a 2009 statute.

A plaintiff must prove three things by the greater weight of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. The elements come from Litchfield v. Cox (1966), as quoted by the Supreme Court in McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 624 S.E.2d 620 (N.C. 2006), and appear in the current pattern jury instruction, N.C.P.I. Civil 800.20.

The three elements of alienation of affection

Sources: McCutchen; Shaw; Bishop; N.C.P.I. Civil 800.20 (rev. Feb. 2025).

Element 1: a marriage with genuine love and affection

The plaintiff does not have to prove a perfect marriage, only “some genuine love and affection,” not “untroubled bliss” (Shaw v. Stringer, 101 N.C. App. 513, 400 S.E.2d 101 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991); Brown v. Hurley, 124 N.C. App. 377, 477 S.E.2d 234 (1996)). In Shaw, the wife testified that she loved both men in different ways, and the court still held that some genuine affection is all a plaintiff must show.

A hypothetical example. A couple argued about money and had seen a counselor, but still vacationed together and exchanged affectionate messages until a coworker began pursuing one of them. That marriage can satisfy the first element. A couple who had lived as strangers for years will struggle. A strained marriage lowers the damages without barring the claim (Scott v. Kiker).

Element 2: the affection was alienated

The loss does not have to be total. The plaintiff need only show affection that was “diminished or destroyed” (Nunn v. Allen, citing Pharr v. Beck). Proof usually comes from a change in behavior: a spouse who becomes distant or leaves.

Element 3: the defendant’s wrongful and malicious conduct caused it

What “malice” means. Not hatred or spite. It means unjustifiable conduct that causes the injury (Chappell v. Redding, 67 N.C. App. 397, 313 S.E.2d 239 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984), disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 399), and it has been loosely defined to include any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marriage (Jones v. Skelley). When the defendant had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse, malice is conclusively presumed (Pharr v. Beck; Rodriguez v. Lemus).

Causation. The defendant does not have to be the only cause. The conduct must be the “controlling or effective cause,” even if there were other causes (Bishop v. Glazener, 245 N.C. 592, 96 S.E.2d 870 (N.C. 1957)).

Active conduct. A person is not liable just for being the one a spouse fell for. There must be “active participation, initiative or encouragement” (Peake v. Shirley, 109 N.C. App. 591 (1993), quoted in Hutelmyer). But “luring” is not required. A willing participant who makes occasions for the relationship can be liable (Scott v. Kiker; Ward v. Beaton, 141 N.C. App. 44, 539 S.E.2d 30 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 398 (2001)). And it is no defense that the spouse consented or made the first move.

Does alienation of affection require sex?

No. In Hayes v. Waltz, the jury found alienation and rejected criminal conversation. In Fish v. Stetina, the criminal conversation claim was dismissed before trial and the jury still returned $1.3 million for alienation. In Heller v. Somdahl, the defendant was not the lover at all.

Who can be sued?

Usually the paramour. But alienation of affection reaches anyone whose malicious conduct causes the alienation, such as a meddling friend (Heller). In Bishop, a husband sued his father-in-law. The Supreme Court said parents may advise a child in good faith but may not maliciously interfere, and it found the evidence insufficient.

The one firm limit is statutory. A suit may be brought “against a natural person only” (G.S. 52-13(c)), so there is no claim against the other person’s employer or any other business.

Case law

Hutelmyer v. Cox

133 N.C. App. 364, 514 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999), disc. rev. denied, 351 N.C. 104

Facts. Married in 1978, the plaintiff described a “fairy tale marriage” through the early 1990s. Her husband’s secretary began traveling and working late with him, and a former neighbor and a coworker saw his car at her home at night. He left in January 1996.

Holding. A verdict of $500,000 compensatory and $500,000 punitive on both claims was upheld. The evidence of malice and causation was sufficient.

Why it matters. The first widely publicized $1 million North Carolina verdict. Coworker testimony and lost financial support mattered.

Case law

Heller v. Somdahl

206 N.C. App. 313, 696 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)

Facts. A service member deployed to Iraq sued a woman who was not his wife’s lover. The evidence was that she encouraged the wife’s relationship with another man, threatened the wife and interfered with the husband’s phone calls.

Holding. An Onslow County jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. No error.

Why it matters. A third party who is not the paramour can be liable for alienation of affection.

Case law

Hayes v. Waltz

246 N.C. App. 438, 784 S.E.2d 607 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)

Facts. The plaintiff’s wife met an Indiana coworker at a 2011 conference in Cancun. They exchanged thousands of calls and texts, which the husband found on the family phone bill. The defendant then drove to North Carolina and took her to Indiana.

Holding. A Wake County jury found alienation but not criminal conversation: $82,500 compensatory and $47,000 punitive. The compensatory award was affirmed, and the punitive ruling was sent back.

Why it matters. Liability for alienation even though the jury rejected criminal conversation.

What is criminal conversation?

Despite the name, criminal conversation is not a crime and has nothing to do with talking. It is a civil claim with two elements (Brown v. Hurley; Johnson v. Pearce, 148 N.C. App. 199, 557 S.E.2d 189 (2001)):

1. an actual marriage between the plaintiff and the spouse, and
2. sexual intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiff’s spouse during the marriage.

Since October 1, 2009, the intercourse must also have happened before the spouses separated (G.S. 52-13(a)). That is the whole claim. The plaintiff need not prove a happy marriage or that the affair caused the breakup. Under the pattern jury instruction (N.C.P.I. Civil 800.25, in the June 2010 version we were able to review), the spouse’s consent, the quality of the marriage and the plaintiff’s own infidelity are not defenses. The plaintiff’s infidelity goes to damages instead (Scott v. Kiker). A single act can be enough: in Jones v. Skelley, discussed below, the court applied North Carolina law to admitted intercourse during one weekend trip to this state.

Whether a defendant’s ignorance of the marriage is any defense to criminal conversation is something we could not confirm from an appellate decision, so treat that point as unsettled.

How is intercourse proved?

Usually by circumstantial evidence (Gray v. Hoover), which must rise above “mere conjecture” (Coachman v. Gould). Hotel charges, phone records, later cohabitation and a child were enough in Rodriguez v. Lemus. Two hours alone in a motor home, months after the wife moved out, was not enough in Chappell v. Redding.

Alienation of affection vs. criminal conversation

Question	Alienation of affection	Criminal conversation
What must be proved	Genuine love and affection; its loss; the defendant’s wrongful and malicious acts as the controlling cause	A valid marriage and sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse
Is sex required?	No	Yes. It is the claim
Does the state of the marriage matter?	Yes. It is an element, and it affects damages	Not for liability. It can affect damages
Who can be sued	Any individual whose conduct caused the loss, including a friend or relative	Only the individual who had intercourse with the spouse
Conduct that counts, and deadline	Before separation only; three years from the defendant’s last act	The same
Did not know about the marriage	An affirmative defense the defendant must prove (Pharr)	Unsettled
Punitive damages	Need aggravation beyond the malice implied by law	The evidence that proves the claim can support them (Horner)

Case law

Sebastian v. Kluttz

6 N.C. App. 201, 170 S.E.2d 104 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)

Facts. A wife married since 1940 sued another woman after her husband left in April 1968. The couple had separated and reconciled twice before.

Holding. Both claims properly went to the jury, but a new trial was ordered for errors in the damages instructions, and the court held that only one compensatory issue and one punitive issue should have been submitted.

Why it matters. The foundational modern statement of both claims. Neither is an element of the other.

Case law

Gray v. Hoover

94 N.C. App. 724, 381 S.E.2d 472 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989), disc. rev. denied, 325 N.C. 545

Facts. The husband, the only witness, described gifts, notes and night calls to his wife, finding the two at his lake trailer, later seeing them living together in Florida, and a call in which the defendant admitted sex.

Holding. A $30,000 compensatory and $10,000 punitive criminal conversation verdict, set aside by the trial judge, was reinstated. Any later alienation award must be reduced by it.

Why it matters. Intercourse can be proved circumstantially, and there is no double recovery.

Case law

Coachman v. Gould

122 N.C. App. 443, 470 S.E.2d 560 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996)

Facts. The husband overheard near-nightly calls between his wife and a Florida business contact and once saw them leave in a car. The defendant said he did not know she was married.

Holding. Summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed. The criminal conversation claim rested on “mere conjecture.”

Why it matters. Phone calls and suspicion are not enough.

G.S. 52-13: the 2009 law and the date of separation

In 2009 the General Assembly passed House Bill 1110 (S.L. 2009-400), which added G.S. 52-13. It applies to acts on or after October 1, 2009 and made three changes:

1. Only conduct before separation counts. No act of the defendant creates liability if it happens after the spouses physically separate with the intent of either spouse that the separation remain permanent.
2. Three years from the last act. Suit must be filed within three years of the defendant’s last act giving rise to the claim.
3. Individuals only. The defendant must be a natural person.

Which conduct counts, and how long you have to sue

Sources: G.S. 52-13; Rodriguez v. Lemus (2018); Beavers v. McMican (2024).

Why the date of separation is the most important date in the case

Before the statute, conduct after separation could support both claims. In McCutchen, the Supreme Court held that an alienation claim accrues whenever the alienation is complete, whatever the separation date. In Johnson v. Pearce, a judge awarded $3,000 for criminal conversation based solely on intercourse after separation. The Supreme Court confirmed in Beavers v. McMican that the statute supersedes the earlier rule, naming McCutchen and Jones v. Skelley.

The separation must be physical, and at least one spouse must intend it to be permanent. A deployment or a few nights at a relative’s house after an argument is not obviously that kind of separation. A dispute about the real date can decide the whole case.

Can evidence from after separation still be used?

Yes, for a limited purpose. Liability must rest on what happened before separation, but later conduct may corroborate it, as long as the pre-separation evidence itself amounts to more than conjecture (Rodriguez, approved in Beavers). The idea began in Pharr, which borrowed it from the alimony statute. A relationship that becomes public after separation does not, by itself, prove who was involved before.

The three-year deadline

For conduct before October 1, 2009, the discovery rule applied: the clock started when the affair was or should have been discovered (Misenheimer v. Burris). For later conduct, G.S. 52-13(b) measures three years from the defendant’s last act, and the pattern jury instruction (N.C.P.I. Civil 800.27A) tells jurors exactly that, with no discovery rule.

We found no appellate decision squarely holding that the statute displaced the discovery rule. The support is the statute’s text and the pattern instruction. The safe assumption is that the clock runs from the last act before separation, whether or not you knew about the affair.

Case law

Misenheimer v. Burris

360 N.C. 620, 637 S.E.2d 173 (N.C. 2006)

Facts. The plaintiff’s friend and employee had an affair with the plaintiff’s wife in the early 1990s and denied it in 1996. The husband confirmed it in July 1997 and sued in April 2000.

Holding. The jury awarded $100,001 actual and $250,000 punitive for criminal conversation. The Supreme Court held that the three years ran from when the affair was or should have been discovered.

Why it matters. This discovery rule governs only acts before October 1, 2009.

Case law

Rodriguez v. Lemus

257 N.C. App. 493, 810 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)

Facts. The defendant was a family friend who had attended the couple’s wedding. Phone records showed 120 contacts in one month, and a card bill showed weekday hotel stays. After the April 2012 separation the husband lived with the defendant, and they had a child.

Holding. A $65,000 bench award was affirmed. Post-separation conduct may corroborate pre-separation conduct when the earlier evidence raises more than conjecture.

Why it matters. The leading evidence case under the 2009 statute.

Case law

Beavers v. McMican

385 N.C. 629, 898 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. 2024), reversing 285 N.C. App. 31 (2022)

Facts. In January 2016 a husband found texts and photos his wife had sent to a contact saved as “Bestie.” They separated that December. In April 2017 she began openly dating the defendant, a coworker with whom she had exchanged 98 texts in October 2016.

Holding. Summary judgment for the defendant stands. The pre-separation evidence did not rise above conjecture about who the other person was.

Why it matters. A plaintiff needs real pre-separation evidence tying this particular defendant to the affair.

How much is a case worth? Damages and real North Carolina verdicts

Compensatory damages

For alienation of affection, the measure is the present value of the support, consortium and other marital interests lost, plus injury to health, feelings or reputation. For criminal conversation, a jury may consider loss of consortium, mental anguish, humiliation, injury to health and loss of support (Sebastian; Hutelmyer; Gray). The pattern instruction on criminal conversation damages tells jurors to award a nominal amount, such as one dollar, if no actual damage is proved.

A financial loss is not required. In Scott v. Kiker the plaintiff’s income rose after the divorce, and damages were still proper. Where there is a financial loss, it can be large: lost income and employment benefits are recoverable if they are not unreasonably speculative (Oddo v. Presser). There is no cap on compensatory damages.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are governed by Chapter 1D of the General Statutes. The plaintiff must first win compensatory damages and then prove an aggravating factor (fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct) by clear and convincing evidence (G.S. 1D-15). The award is capped at three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. The judge reduces a verdict that exceeds the cap, and the jury is not told the cap exists (G.S. 1D-25).

In an alienation case, the aggravation must go beyond the malice the law already implies, and evidence of sexual relations is enough to send the punitive question to the jury. So held Ward v. Beaton, which affirmed $52,000 in compensatory and $43,000 in punitive damages against a woman who repeatedly invited the plaintiff’s husband to her home. In a criminal conversation case, the evidence that proves the claim can also support punitive damages (Horner v. Byrnett).

Either side can ask to split the trial under G.S. 1D-30, which keeps evidence of the defendant’s net worth out of the first phase (Ward). A judge who upholds or disturbs a punitive award must explain why in writing under G.S. 1D-50 (Hayes v. Waltz).

Anatomy of a damages award

Verdict figures as reported by WBTV, WCNC and Autoweek. Damages categories from Sebastian, Hutelmyer and Gray; punitive rules from G.S. 1D-15 and 1D-25.

What have North Carolina juries and judges actually awarded?

The range in the chart below is enormous: from $65,000 to $30 million.

Notable North Carolina verdicts and awards, 1997 to 2026

Sources: appellate opinions and news reports from WRAL, ABC News, ABC11, CBS News, the ABA Journal and WBTV, all linked under Sources. Amounts are as awarded, not as collected. This is a selection, not a complete list. Two bar scales are used because the three largest awards dwarf the rest.

Three things stand out. First, each of the three largest awards was either decided by a judge alone or tried without the defendant in the courtroom. Second, large awards against absent defendants are fragile. Sprinkle ($2,294,000) and Brown v. Ellis ($600,000) were both set aside for lack of notice. Third, the jury verdicts in this guide that survived a contested appeal run from $40,000 (Gray, in 1989) to $1.41 million (Oddo).

We found no reliable published figures on how often these cases settle, or for how much.

Case law

Oddo v. Presser

158 N.C. App. 360, 581 S.E.2d 123 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 358 N.C. 128, 592 S.E.2d 195 (N.C. 2004) (per curiam)

Facts. The plaintiff was an investment advisor and Davidson College wrestling coach. In February 1999 his wife contacted a former boyfriend, and they met in Charlotte that March. The couple separated in April.

Holding. A Mecklenburg County jury awarded $910,000 compensatory and $500,000 punitive. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on compensatory damages, and the Supreme Court reinstated the verdict.

Why it matters. A relationship of only weeks before separation supported a $1.41 million judgment.

Case law

Scott v. Kiker

59 N.C. App. 458, 297 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982)

Facts. A husband sued on both claims. He admitted his own infidelity, and his income rose after the divorce.

Holding. No error. Financial loss is not required. The plaintiff’s infidelity only reduces damages. The spouse’s consent is no defense. Punitive damages need aggravation beyond implied malice.

Why it matters. The standard source on damages and on defenses that do not work.

Case law

Fish v. Stetina

297 N.C. App. 733, 913 S.E.2d 236 (N.C. Ct. App. 2025), cert. denied (May 21, 2025)

Facts. The plaintiff’s wife met a California cyclist through a charity ride. Their calls grew from 9 in January 2016 to 138 in March 2017, and the Life360 app placed her at a Boone hotel when he was there. He deleted his texts on learning he might be sued.

Holding. A Catawba County jury awarded $804,000 compensatory and $500,000 punitive for alienation alone. No error.

Why it matters. A seven-figure verdict affirmed without proof of sex.

Can a judgment actually be collected? Bankruptcy and insurance

A verdict measures what a jury thought the harm was worth, not what the defendant can pay.

• Many large awards go unpaid. A year after the $9 million Guilford County verdict, WRAL reported that the plaintiff had not been paid anything. The lawyer who won $750,000 in Pitt County called it a moral victory, per the ABA Journal.
• Insurance does not help. In American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morgan, 147 N.C. App. 438, 556 S.E.2d 25 (2001), the insurer had no duty to defend or pay under a homeowner’s policy or a personal catastrophe liability endorsement.
• Bankruptcy is not a simple escape. Federal law excepts debts for “willful and malicious injury” from discharge (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)). In Keever v. Gallagher (In re Gallagher), 388 B.R. 694 (W.D.N.C. 2008), the bankruptcy court tried the issue separately, and the district court affirmed that the alienation portion of a $125,000 judgment could not be discharged. Nondischargeability is likely, but not automatic. We did not confirm how Chapter 13, or a criminal conversation award standing alone, is treated.

Defenses, weak spots and the risks of suing

Defense	How it works	Authority
No genuine love and affection	Attacks the first element of alienation. “Some” affection is enough, so this works only for marriages already empty.	Shaw; Brown v. Hurley
Not the controlling cause	Something else ended the marriage.	Bishop; Ponder
Conduct after separation	Acts after a physical separation intended to be permanent cannot create liability.	G.S. 52-13(a); Beavers
Filed too late	Three years from the defendant’s last act.	G.S. 52-13(b); Coachman
Did not know of the marriage	An affirmative defense to alienation that the defendant must plead and prove.	Pharr, footnote 2
The plaintiff consented	Consent or connivance of the plaintiff is a recognized defense to criminal conversation. The spouse’s consent is not.	N.C.P.I. Civil 800.25
Wrong state	No personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or the tort occurred in a state that has abolished the claim.	Eluhu; Bassiri
Unconstitutional	Rejected as a facial challenge.	Malecek

Risks for the person who sues

• Your marriage goes on trial. Because the plaintiff must prove genuine love and affection, the defense may explore the plaintiff’s own conduct, including infidelity (Scott v. Kiker).
• Counterclaims and sanctions. Ponder ended with $1.5 million awarded against the plaintiff. In Chappell, the plaintiff’s secret taping of phone calls drew privacy and emotional distress counterclaims. In Pritchett v. Dudek, No. COA24-1065 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025) (unpublished), a suit was dismissed and $22,500 in attorney’s fees imposed for amended complaints filed for delay.
• Proof problems. Coachman and Beavers both ended in summary judgment for the defendant.
• Delay. In Fish, the first suit was filed in June 2020, the verdict came in March 2023, and the appeal was decided in February 2025. Ponder ran from 2015 to 2025.
• Publicity and collectability. These cases draw press coverage, and a judgment may never be paid.

Case law

Ponder v. Been

275 N.C. App. 626, 853 S.E.2d 302 (2020), rev’d, 380 N.C. 570, 869 S.E.2d 193 (2022); after trial, No. COA24-552 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), 919 S.E.2d 527

Facts. The plaintiff’s wife met a Florida neighbor in 2013, and they kept in touch by text and phone. The spouses separated after she obtained a domestic violence protective order. In 2017 the plaintiff went to the defendant’s Florida home, purportedly to help serve process, and caused an altercation.

Holding. The Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction in 2022. At the 2023 Mecklenburg County trial, the jury found the defendant not liable and found the plaintiff liable for abuse of process: $932,042 compensatory and $606,502.31 punitive. That verdict was reinstated on appeal in 2025.

Why it matters. A plaintiff can end up owing the defendant.

Can you sue someone who lives in another state?

Often, yes. But two questions have to be answered.

Question 1: can a North Carolina court reach the defendant?

This is personal jurisdiction. In Cooper v. Shealy, 140 N.C. App. 729, 537 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000), phone calls and e-mail from South Carolina into a Guilford County home were enough. The Supreme Court took the same view in Brown v. Ellis and Ponder v. Been. Most recently, in Ammel v. Sinema, No. 1:26-CV-38 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2026), a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on nine Signal messages sent to the plaintiff’s husband while he was in North Carolina. That ruling decides only where the case may be heard.

The contrast is Eluhu v. Rosenhaus, 159 N.C. App. 355, 583 S.E.2d 707 (2003): a Tennessee plaintiff, a California defendant, and a three-day overlap at Atlantic Beach. That was not enough. An order denying a jurisdiction motion can be appealed immediately (G.S. 1-277(b)).

Question 2: where did the tort happen?

This is choice of law. North Carolina applies the law of the state where the tort occurred. If that state has abolished the claim, the claim fails. In Jones v. Skelley, 195 N.C. App. 500, 673 S.E.2d 385 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009), the couple lived in South Carolina, which does not recognize these claims, but some of the conduct took place in North Carolina. The court held that what matters is where the alienating conduct occurred, not where the plaintiff lives. Where it occurred is a question for the jury (Darnell v. Rupplin, 91 N.C. App. 349, 371 S.E.2d 743 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)).

Case law

Brown v. Ellis

363 N.C. 360, 678 S.E.2d 222 (N.C. 2009) (per curiam), reversing 184 N.C. App. 547 (2007); on remand, 206 N.C. App. 93, 696 S.E.2d 813 (2010)

Facts. A Guilford County husband sued a California coworker of his wife who had never been to North Carolina, alleging almost daily phone calls and e-mails to her here.

Holding. Those allegations were enough for long-arm jurisdiction. On remand, a $600,000 judgment was set aside because the defendant lacked adequate notice of trial.

Why it matters. Calls and e-mails into North Carolina can support jurisdiction over someone who never came here.

Case law

Bassiri v. Pilling

287 N.C. App. 538, 884 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023)

Facts. The defendant met the plaintiff’s wife at dental conferences in California, Nevada and Utah. He never came to North Carolina and otherwise communicated by Facebook, Snapchat, e-mail and text while she was here.

Holding. Dismissal reversed. Where the tort occurred is a choice-of-law and merits question. If in North Carolina or Utah, that state’s law applies. If in California or Nevada, the claim fails.

Why it matters. Location is fought on the merits, with evidence.

Are these lawsuits constitutional?

So far, yes. In 2017, in Malecek v. Williams, the Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the torts on their face. The same opinion was candid about their history, calling them “born out of misogyny.” But a Court of Appeals panel cannot abolish them. One tried in Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C. App. 460, 322 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984), vacated, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (N.C. 1985), and the Supreme Court vacated the decision on February 27, 1985.

Later attempts have not fared better. In Estes v. Battiston, No. COA19-699 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2020), a defendant tried to send his challenge to a three-judge panel under G.S. 1-267.1. The court dismissed the appeal: that statute covers acts of the General Assembly, not common-law torts. Hull v. Brown, 279 N.C. App. 570, 2021-NCCOA-525 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021), an Iredell County case, also ended with the appeal dismissed. And in Hughes v. Cobb, the trial court denied a constitutional motion in December 2024.

Case law

Malecek v. Williams

255 N.C. App. 300, 804 S.E.2d 592 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017)

Facts. A husband sued a physician who worked at the hospital where his wife was a nurse. The trial court dismissed, accepting the argument that both torts are unconstitutional on their face.

Holding. Reversed. The torts do not violate substantive due process or the First Amendment. The State has a legitimate interest in protecting marriage and remedying personal injury. Challenges to particular applications remain possible.

Why it matters. The controlling answer to constitutional attacks.

Evidence, timeline and trial: how a case actually unfolds

The evidence that wins and loses these cases

These cases are usually built from records: texts and phone bills, hotel and travel charges, location history, social media, private investigators, and depositions.

120

phone contacts in one month in Rodriguez. With hotel charges and later cohabitation, enough.

1,093

calls and texts in May 2011 in Hayes, found on the family phone bill.

9 to 138

calls a month in Fish, January 2016 compared with March 2017.

98

texts in one month in Beavers. Without more, not enough.

Evidence that has carried real North Carolina cases

Each example comes from the appellate opinion named.

Digital trails. In Clark v. Clark, 280 N.C. App. 403, 867 S.E.2d 704, 2021-NCCOA-653 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021), a wife tracked her husband’s phone to another Army officer’s quarters, and fake online profiles targeting her were later traced to an IP address at the home the two shared. A Cumberland County jury found for her on alienation and emotional distress, and the opinion states she was awarded $1,200,000.

Eyewitnesses and silence. In Nunn v. Allen, 154 N.C. App. 523, 574 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 675, the husband, his father and a friend saw the pair through a window. The defendant then failed to answer requests for admission, which meant he admitted a sexual relationship. The $100,000 verdict stood.

What backfires. Illegally intercepted phone calls are inadmissible under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2515) and Rickenbaker v. Rickenbaker, 290 N.C. 373 (1976). Deleting messages is no better. In Fish, the jury heard that the defendant erased his texts after learning he might be sued.

Investigate before filing. In Brown v. Hurley, the court refused to sanction a plaintiff who had taken depositions, subpoenaed phone, card and hotel records, and hired a private investigator.

From complaint to verdict

How a case moves from first call to collection

Sources: G.S. 7A-243; steps as seen in Hughes v. Cobb, Sprinkle and Ponder.

Which court. If the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less, the case belongs in district court. If it is more, it belongs in superior court (G.S. 7A-243). Either side can demand a jury. Bench trials happen too, as in Rodriguez.

Mediation. Superior court cases are ordered to a mediated settlement conference. It happened in Hughes v. Cobb and in Sprinkle.

How long. Hayes was filed in August 2013 and tried in August 2014. Hughes v. Cobb took about two years and eight months to reach a verdict. Appeals add years. The trials themselves are usually short.

What it costs. We are not aware of reliable published figures. It is a fair question for a first meeting.

How these claims interact with divorce, alimony, custody and settlement

It is a separate lawsuit. The claim is against the third party. It is not part of the divorce, though it can run alongside it. In Fish v. Stetina, the husband was ordered to pay his wife $764,000 in alimony in the divorce case and won $1.304 million from the third party.

The same facts drive alimony. Under G.S. 50-16.3A(a), if a dependent spouse committed “illicit sexual behavior” during the marriage and on or before the date of separation, the court shall not award that spouse alimony. If the supporting spouse did, the court shall order alimony. If both did, the judge decides. Acts the other spouse condoned are not counted. Our guide to alimony in North Carolina explains the rest.

Separation agreements can keep or give up the claim. In Brown v. Hurley, the husband insisted on a paragraph preserving his claims against the third party. A spouse on the other side may want the opposite. Read that paragraph before you sign, and see our guide to separation agreements.

Leverage is real. The Court of Appeals acknowledged in Malecek that these claims are often used for leverage in divorce cases.

Custody is a different question, decided under its own statute. This guide does not cover how an affair is weighed there. See our guide to child custody.

Many couples settle the financial side of a separation in mediation. Our sister practice, Mediation Solutions, offers family financial and custody mediation in Huntersville.

Which states still allow alienation of affection suits in 2026?

Very few. According to 2026 surveys by Daily Citizen and LegalClarity, the claim remains available in North Carolina, Hawaii, Mississippi and South Dakota. LegalClarity also lists Utah, where a repeal has been enacted but, by its enrolled text, is not yet in effect (see the table below). Older articles list six states. They are out of date.

Where alienation of affection suits remain available (October 2026)

Sources: 2026 surveys by Daily Citizen and LegalClarity; New Mexico courts release; Utah S.B. 109 (2026), enrolled text. See the table below for caveats.

State	Status as of October 1, 2026
North Carolina	Available, limited by G.S. 52-13. A repeal bill is pending.
Hawaii, Mississippi, South Dakota	Reported as still available. We relied on secondary sources and did not confirm each state’s own statutes or cases.
Utah	Abolition enacted. S.B. 109 was signed March 23, 2026. The enrolled bill states an effective date of May 5, 2027, although one Utah law-firm blog gives May 6, 2026. Confirm with the Utah Legislature before relying on either date.
New Mexico	Abolished by a unanimous state Supreme Court on January 26, 2026 in Butterworth v. Jackson (court release).
Illinois	Abolished by Public Act 99-0090, effective January 1, 2016.

For criminal conversation, we could not find a reliable current list. The safest statement is that North Carolina is one of very few states that still permit it.

Where the “heart balm” claims came from

Both claims are old. The historical discussion in Cannon v. Miller traces North Carolina liability for enticing a wife away to Barbee v. Armstead, 32 N.C. 530 (1849), and criminal conversation to English law in Blackstone’s day. At common law only a husband could sue. North Carolina later allowed wives to sue as well.

States began abolishing them by statute in the 1930s, according to a 2026 commentary on Justia’s Verdict. South Carolina ended alienation of affection by court decision in 1992.

Will North Carolina abolish these claims?

People have been trying for more than forty years. The Court of Appeals tried in 1984, and the Supreme Court vacated its decision in February 1985. Since then, repeal bills have been filed repeatedly in the General Assembly without passing.

Heart balm law in North Carolina, 1849 to 2026

Sources: opinions cited in this guide and General Assembly bill pages. The list of bills is not exhaustive; sessions between 2003 and 2019 were not all searched.

The bill pages: H576 (2001), H1123 (2009), H485 (2021), H657 (2023), S626 (2025) and S836 (2026). Senate Bill 836 would abolish both claims for suits filed after enactment. It was filed April 27, 2026, re-referred to committee the next day, and has not passed either chamber.

In June 2023, after he was himself named in such a suit, the then-Speaker of the House said the law should be repealed, and the Senate leader disagreed, according to WUNC. That suit was reported as resolved and voluntarily dismissed the following month.

Do not plan around repeal. If you have a claim, the three-year clock is the deadline that matters.

For Huntersville, Lake Norman, Mecklenburg and Iredell County readers

These claims come from state law, so the rules are the same in Charlotte as in Statesville. A few points for readers in Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Mooresville and elsewhere around the lake:

• Local juries have decided these cases. A Mecklenburg County jury returned the $1.41 million verdict in Oddo v. Presser, which involved a Davidson College coach. Another returned the 2023 defense verdict in Ponder v. Been, along with $1.5 million against the plaintiff.
• Iredell County has seen the constitutional fight. Hull v. Brown arose there.

The case closest to home is Sprinkle v. Johnson, which involved a Mooresville practice and, according to the opinion, a Lake Norman house.

Case law

Sprinkle v. Johnson

No. COA20-32, 2021-NCCOA-402 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2021)

Facts. The plaintiff’s wife worked for 17 years at the defendant’s Mooresville oral surgery practice. The opinion describes a four-year affair, after which the couple reconciled. Defense counsel withdrew, and a Rowan County jury trial went forward without the defendant.

Holding. The resulting $2,294,000 judgment was vacated because the defendant did not have notice of the trial.

Why it matters. A spouse can sue even when the marriage survives, but a judgment without proper notice will not stand.

Adkins Law is in Huntersville and works with clients across the Lake Norman area, in both Mecklenburg and Iredell counties.

What to do if you think you have a claim

Start with these questions. If any answer is “no,” the claim is probably not there, however real the hurt.

Do I have a claim? A five-question screen

A simplified screen based on G.S. 52-13, Coachman v. Gould and Beavers v. McMican. It is general information, not legal advice; real cases turn on details this chart leaves out.

If you clear that screen, these steps protect your position while you decide.

• Pin down two dates. The date you and your spouse separated, and the last date you can connect the other person to conduct before that. Count three years forward from the second date.
• Keep what you lawfully have. Phone bills, card statements, shared-location history, and messages and photos on your own devices. Save them as they are.
• Do not secretly record calls, and ask a lawyer before you open any account or device that is not yours.
• Do not confront the other person. In Ponder, a visit to the defendant’s home was part of the story behind a seven-figure verdict against the plaintiff.
• Be candid about your own marriage. Its weak points and your own conduct will come out in discovery.
• Decide what you actually want, and ask whether the other person could ever pay a judgment.
• Read any separation agreement before signing. It may release the very claim you are considering.
• Talk to a lawyer early. A sound case takes investigation, and the clock is running.

What to do if you have been sued or threatened with a suit

Being named in one of these suits is frightening, and it can be public. There are real defenses. The cases show what helps and what makes things worse.

• Do not ignore the complaint or the discovery. In Venters v. Lanier (N.C. Ct. App. 2023), a defendant without a lawyer answered requests for admission 25 days late, and the court entered a $1,000,000 judgment on the admissions. The trial court later allowed the admissions to be amended, but only after an appeal.
• Do not delete anything. Texts, call logs, photos, social media. Deleted messages were put before the jury in Fish.
• Do not move assets. In Venters, deeding real property away right after being sued led to a second lawsuit.
• Check the dates first. When did the spouses separate? When was your last contact before that? Is the suit within three years?
• Look at where it happened. If you live in another state, or the conduct took place elsewhere, raise jurisdiction and choice of law at the start.
• Be honest about what you knew. Not knowing the person was married is a defense to alienation of affection, but you have to plead and prove it.
• Stay reachable. Keep your lawyer and the court informed of your address. Trials held without the defendant produced large judgments in Sprinkle and Brown v. Ellis.
• Do not count on insurance, and do not contact the plaintiff or the spouse about the case. Let your lawyer do the talking.

Once you are served, deadlines start to run. Several of the largest judgments in this guide were entered against people who did not respond or did not show up.

Frequently asked questions

What is alienation of affection in North Carolina?

It is a civil lawsuit against a third party whose wrongful and malicious conduct destroyed or diminished the genuine love and affection in a marriage. The plaintiff must prove genuine affection, its loss, and that the defendant’s conduct was the controlling cause. The marriage need not have been perfect. It is a claim for money, not a criminal charge.

What is criminal conversation?

It is a civil claim, not a crime, against a person who had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse during the marriage and before the spouses separated. The plaintiff need not prove that the marriage was happy or that the affair caused the breakup.

Do I have to prove sex to win an alienation of affection case?

No. North Carolina courts have upheld alienation verdicts where the jury rejected the criminal conversation claim (Hayes v. Waltz), where that claim was dismissed before trial (Fish v. Stetina), and where the defendant was not the lover at all (Heller v. Somdahl).

Can I sue someone other than the person my spouse was involved with?

For alienation of affection, yes. A friend or relative who maliciously interferes in a marriage can be liable, although good-faith advice from a parent is protected. Only an individual can be sued, not an employer or other business.

Can I sue over something that happened after we separated?

No. Under G.S. 52-13(a), acts after the spouses physically separate, with either spouse intending the separation to be permanent, cannot create liability. Later conduct can only corroborate evidence of conduct before separation.

How long do I have to file an alienation of affection or criminal conversation lawsuit?

Three years from the defendant’s last act giving rise to the claim, under G.S. 52-13(b). The safe assumption is that the clock runs from that act, not from the day you discovered the affair.

How much money can be recovered in an alienation of affection case?

It varies widely. Compensatory damages have no cap. Punitive damages are capped at three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. The awards charted in this guide range from $65,000 to $30 million, and many large awards are never collected. A homeowner’s policy has been held not to cover them.

What did the jury decide in the September 2026 case involving a former NASCAR driver?

News outlets including WBTV, WCNC and Autoweek report that on September 24, 2026 a Davidson County jury awarded $800,000 for criminal conversation, $50,000 for alienation of affection and $1 in punitive damages on each claim against former driver Jennifer Jo Cobb, who denied the allegations. Post-trial motions and an appeal remain possible.

Can I sue someone who lives in another state?

Often, yes, if the person directed calls, texts or messages to your spouse in North Carolina and the alienating conduct occurred here. If the conduct occurred only in a state that has abolished the claim, the case fails.

Does an affair affect alimony in North Carolina?

Yes. Under G.S. 50-16.3A, a dependent spouse who committed illicit sexual behavior before separation cannot receive alimony, and a supporting spouse who did must pay it. If both did, the judge decides. Acts that were condoned are not counted.

Are these lawsuits constitutional, and will North Carolina repeal them?

The Court of Appeals upheld both claims against a constitutional challenge in 2017. Repeal bills were filed in 2001, 2009, 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2026, and none has passed. Senate Bill 836 was filed in April 2026 and has not passed either chamber.

Which states still allow alienation of affection lawsuits?

As of October 2026, surveys list North Carolina, Hawaii, Mississippi and South Dakota. New Mexico abolished its claim in January 2026. Utah has enacted an abolition statute, and its enrolled bill states an effective date of May 5, 2027.

Talk with a North Carolina family law attorney about where you stand

Whether you are deciding if a claim is worth bringing or you have just been served, the dates and the evidence matter most. Adkins Law, PLLC helps people in Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Mooresville and across Mecklenburg and Iredell counties understand their options. We cannot promise an outcome. We can give you a clear, honest look at where you stand.

Call Adkins Law (704) 274-5677Text (704) 231-5762Request a consultation

Adkins Law, PLLC · 9620 Sherrill Estates Road, Huntersville, NC 28078 · Calling or texting does not create an attorney–client relationship.

Keep reading

• Divorce in North Carolina: the complete guide
• Alimony in North Carolina, including how adultery affects it
• Separation agreements in North Carolina
• Property division in North Carolina
• Child custody in North Carolina

Sources

• Statutes and session laws (ncleg.gov): G.S. 52-13 · S.L. 2009-400 · G.S. 1-52 · G.S. 1D-15 · G.S. 1D-25 · G.S. 7A-243 · G.S. 50-16.3A · G.S. 50-16.1A · Senate Bill 836 (2026), filed text
• Pattern jury instructions (UNC School of Government): N.C.P.I. Civil 800.20 · 800.25 (June 2010 version) · 800.26 · 800.27A
• Court opinions (CourtListener): American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. · Bassiri · Beavers · Bishop · Brown v. Ellis · Brown v. Ellis (on remand, 2010) · Brown v. Hurley · Cannon · Cannon (N.C. 1985) · Chappell · Clark · Coachman · Cooper · Darnell · Eluhu · Estes · Fish · Gray · Hayes · Heller · Horner · Hull · Hutelmyer · In re Gallagher · Johnson · Jones · Malecek · McCutchen · Misenheimer · Nunn · Oddo · Oddo (N.C. 2004) · Pharr · Ponder · Ponder (N.C. 2022) · Pritchett · Rodriguez · Scott · Sebastian · Shaw · Sprinkle · Venters · Ward. Estes and Sprinkle are cited by docket number because we could not confirm an official reporter citation. Venters is reported at 288 N.C. App. 483, 886 S.E.2d 188 (2023).
• Hughes v. Cobb news reports: WBTV · Autoweek (via Yahoo Sports) · WCNC (via Yahoo Sports) · FOX 13 · Heavy · Complex
• Other verdicts and awards: WRAL (2011) · ABC News (2010) · SoVaNow · ABC11 · CBS News · ABA Journal · WITN · WRAL (November 2025) · WRAL (March 2026) · News & Observer roundup (via AOL)
• Other states and history: New Mexico courts release · Utah S.B. 109, enrolled · Illinois Public Act 99-0090 · Justia Verdict · Daily Citizen · LegalClarity · WUNC · Carolina Journal

About the author: Christopher Adkins

Chris Adkins (Charles Christopher Adkins) is the founder of Adkins Law, PLLC in Huntersville, North Carolina, a certified mediator with the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission, and the author of The Book on Divorce in North Carolina. Before practicing law he served as a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer and as a Combat Engineer officer in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

Read the full profile · Request a consultation · (704) 274-5677

This page provides general information about North Carolina law for educational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Statutes, court rules and local practice change, and the outcome of any case depends on its own facts. Speak with a licensed North Carolina attorney about your situation. Written by Christopher Adkins, attorney at Adkins Law, PLLC, Huntersville, North Carolina. Last reviewed October 1, 2026.