To this day, all across the state of Mississippi, disgruntled ex-spouses are winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in nasty, antiquated lawsuits; strictly out of spite. Each year, these suits are filed hundreds of times, with payouts totaling millions.

Under the "Alienation of Affection" cause-of-action, the heartbroken and/or upset person (plaintiff) can sue their ex spouse's friends, family, therapists, new lovers, 1-time affairs, and so on and so forth (defendants), as long as they believe they may have helped "damage" the marriage. This can be by simply expressing their opinions, observations, and thoughts in a private conversation, even if they did not initiate the discussion, and even if the spouse was already considering divorce.

Let's be clear; this action is continuously taken by bitter people, who want to blame anybody but themselves for their failed marriage. They want to make it hurt, by collecting money and causing public embarrassment. They want to find leverage, in the already sensitive and sometimes nasty divorce process. THIS IS BASICALLY LEGALIZED EXTORTION.

Divorces do happen. Affairs do happen. Those who support this law do so in a belief that it will prevent affairs. And while most will agree that adultery is 100% morally wrong, it is absurd that someone can be hit with financial ramifications out of spite. Furthermore, this is still all true, even when the defendant did not have sex with the plaintiff's spouse. This is still all true, even when the defendant does not live in Mississippi. Any American can still be sued, by talking to a married person about their marriage, even if only over the phone, texts or emails. And how is this legal? Solely because the plaintiff and their ex-spouse lived in Mississippi. Cases exactly like this have been tried, recently and successfully, with settlements regularly topping $200,000+ per suit.

By the way, this legal principle is derived from English common law of the 17th century, when women were considered the property of their husband.

This tort was once in effect in all 50 states, but over the years, as our family law has been evolving away from the nineteenth-century retribution-based model to today’s equitable relief (based on valuations and equities), there are now only 6 states still taking these cases (Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii). The state of Mississippi overwhelmingly sides with plaintiffs, and in the year 2020, this tort just does not fit.

Some Mississippi Senators have introduced bills to attempt to abolish this (2013 & 2017), but they died quickly. Senator Sean Tindell was the only person who author and support both bills, but shortly after his 2017 bill was squashed, he was appointed to Judge of the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Whether this helps, or hurts this cause, is unclear. However we need to show lawmakers that we are better than this.

Here are just a few final points and problems with the cause of action:

• Causation—who can really say that the “alienation of affection” is what caused the marriage’s demise? Anyone who has ever been married knows that marriages are extremely complicated.
• Damages—as pointed out by Justice Dickinson in a concurring opinion in Fitch v. Valentine, there are no standards for compensating the plaintiff.
• Quasi-extortion—there is a quasi-extortion element to the cause of action. Many alienation of affection claims settle before suit is filed in order to keep the allegations out of the public record. Once suit is actually filed, the case is likely to go to trial because the plaintiff has shot his/ her biggest bullet. Compare that to the rest of the civil justice system where cases are rarely settled before suit is filed, but most do settle after suit is filed.
• Fault—in an alienation of affections lawsuit (when adultery was actually occurred), fault is placed solely on the third-person involved in the affair instead of the cheating spouse. But it was the cheating spouse who broke a vow. 
• Resolution—It is difficult to actually state that an alienation of affection case promotes the orderly resolution of the acrimony between the individuals involved. In fact, how can it not do the opposite?
• 44 states do not recognize the cause of action. That fact standing alone does not make the action bad, but it does suggest problems.
• The danger of entrapment—an enterprising couple who are grifters could set up an alienation of affection lawsuit and then share in the proceeds. A new couple moves to town. The wife is seen around town flirting with doctors and other wealthy men. This leads to a notorious affair followed by an alienation of affection lawsuit by the woman’s husband. In the lawsuit, the woman testifies that the affair did alienate her affection from her husband and destroyed their marriage. After a big settlement the couple then moves to North Carolina or another state that recognizes the action and starts the whole scam over. This is not that far-fetched, and it would be surprising if there has never been collusion in an alienation of affection lawsuit.

In summary, it’s a bad cause of action that should be abolished.