- The Washington Times - Thursday, June 19, 2003

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri Supreme Court struck down the state’s “alienation of affection” law, saying that “stealing” the love of a married person is an antiquated legal doctrine.

The court, in a 5-2 decision yesterday, agreed with a woman accused of marital infidelity that alienation of affection is an antiquated cause that has no place in a modern legal system. The justices struck down the law and overturned a lower court’s $75,000 judgment against her.

The woman, Sivi Noellsch, was sued by Katherine Helsel for reportedly having an affair with Mrs. Helsel’s husband, David, who eventually filed for divorce. Mrs. Helsel cited alienation of affection as the reason for her lawsuit.

In 2001, a Buchanan County jury found in favor of Mrs. Helsel and awarded her damages, the $75,000 from Mrs. Noellsch. Mrs. Noellsch and Mr. Helsel have since married.

“The cause of action is gone, the claim is gone, my client can go on with her life,” said Mrs. Noellsch’s attorney, Dennis Owens.

In its opinion, the court wrote that alienation of affection has its roots in English common law and was adopted by many states in the 19th century. Today, it is cause for legal action in only eight states: Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

In a similar North Carolina lawsuit, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that compensatory damages of $910,000 were excessive against a doctor who had an affair with a coach’s wife. The court, however, upheld punitive damages of $500,000.

The North Carolina House approved a measure doing away with alienation of affection, but the bill is bogged down in the Senate, where it is unlikely to pass.

Alienation of affection is grounded in the outdated idea that married people have property interests in each other and its present-day interpretation does nothing to preserve marriages, Judge Richard Teitelman wrote for the majority.

The lawsuits are usually filed after the marriage is broken, so revenge — not reconciliation — is often the primary motive, Judge Teitelman wrote.

“Most lawyers would have predicted this,” Ken Jones, editor of Missouri Lawyers Weekly, said of the decision. “It really brings Missouri into the 21st century.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide