Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Alienation of Affection
The San Francisco businessman who flies to Maui to meet his married girlfriend for a romantic week in paradise; the Memphis nurse who travels to the coast for a night of gambling and drinking with her married Biloxi boyfriend; the Indianapolis lawyer who drives to Chicago to meet a married paralegal for fun and frolic on the Miracle Mile; and the married Texas oil man who meets his also-married paramour in her hometown of Santa Fe for a couple of days of shopping and dining ' these undercover lovers could find themselves as defendants in alienation of affection lawsuits filed by aggrieved spouses in states where that arcane tort still exists. Hawaii, Mississippi, Illinois and New Mexico are four of only seven states that still maintain a cause of action for alienation of affection. The other three states are North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
All but two states ' Louisiana and Alaska ' have recognized statutory or common-law actions for this tort at one time or another. See Oldhausen v. Brown, 372 So. 2d 787 (La.Ct.App.1979). Despite this virtual uniformity, however, 41 states and the District of Columbia have abolished actions for alienation of affection ' either statutorily or judicially. Missouri was the most recent state to bury this tort in 2003, when the Missouri Supreme Court decided Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W. 3d 231 (Mo.2003) and wrote the obituary for alienation of affection suits in that state.
This article focuses on the consequences that befall cheating spouses who participate in romantic interstate communication with a married person and take part in romantic or sexual activity with a married person in states where the tort of alienation of affection is still alive.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.