In the recent unpublished, trial court decision of Slanovec v. Carroll and Modebadze, the court held that the Heart Balm Act did not apply to cases between parent and child. The case was between two siblings. The sister sued her brother for making false statements about her and interfering with her relationship with their mother.
However, the court inquired whether the public policy the Legislature sought to vindicate by enacting the Heart Balm Act similarly requires rejection of the claims raised in this case (between siblings) even though the Legislature didn’t expressly abolish it. The court considered whether it might be a regression of New Jersey common law to allow the courts to become so involved in personal familial matters not greatly dissimilar from those the Heart Balm Act brought to an end so long ago. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Heart Balm Act abolished “rights of action . . . for the alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction or breach of contract to marry” and has been interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court as having application only to claims impacting “the institution or marriage.” Blackman v. Iles, 4 N.J. 82, 89 (1950). The few binding decisions that have issued since Blackman all recognize that the Heart Balm Act applies only when the claim centers on a marital relationship.
The fact that the Heart Balm Act did not expressly sweep away all imaginable alienation-of-affection claims does not automatically mean that the court can allow these types of claims between siblings. Rather, the common law acknowledged alienation-of-affection claims until, in 1935, the Legislature found these and other similar common law claims to have been “exercised by unscrupulous persons for their unjust enrichment” and that such actions have been subject “to grave abuses, causing extreme annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation and pecuniary damage to many persons wholly innocent and free of any wrongdoing, who were merely the victims of circumstances.” Blackman, 4 N.J. at 91. Not much thought about these types of actions has been given by our courts since. The court noted that simply because the legislature did not abolish this type of case in 1935, did not mean that we should allow it now in this context.
For the purposes of the case before it, the trial court held that the case could proceed past the pleadings stage to discovery. Although, the court noted that the burden on the plaintiff (sister) would be great.
So are heartbalm torts viable in New Jersey? Not really. While this case is proceeding on a novel set of legal arguments, traditionally we would only consider a ‘heart balm tort’ to be a civil case that address a romantic or marital relationship. Typically, these are cases for: seduction, criminal conversation, alienation of affection, and breach of promise to marry. In these cases, a person would be seeking monetary damages for these personal injuries. To be clear, this would be a case between two people previously engaged in the romantic relationship. Like in the case above, we would not generally consider a heartbalm tort to be between two persons in a non-romantic relationship.
Only even states still allow heartbalm cases to proceed: Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. In fact, by the 1950s all other states had abolished these.
While the attorneys in this case had a novel theory for seeking the case to be dismissed and the trial court entertained this theory, it is unlikely that a legitimate civil tort case would be held to be a heartbalm tort and dismissed for that reason alone.
Although heart balm torts are rarely raised in family law matters, it may be possible to see this type of unique theory raised in the court. Additionally, heart balm torts are still viable in other states. If you are in a family matter where there is this type of claim, contact the experienced attorneys at Baker Legal Group to discuss your options.