Жеке қарым-қатынасты бұзуға үшінші тараптың кінәсі

Legal term whereby a third party is blamed for the breakdown of a personal relationship

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. The tort of alienation of affections often overlaps with another "heart balm" tort: criminal conversation. Alienation of affections has most in common with the tort of tortious interference, where a third party can be held liable for interfering with the contractual relationship between two parties.

Alienation of affection actions in Australia stopped being good law since 1975, with the passing of the Family Law Act 1975. In the new system, outlined by the statute, there exists a fault less ground of divorce, and that is irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, which is evidenced by 12 months of separation. Spousal behaviour though, can be a consideration a court may take into account during a property settlement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that alienation of affection and the related tort cause of action for "criminal conversation" was not available as a cause of action in the year 1962 in the case of Kungl v. Schiefer, S. C. R. 443. The basis for the claim by the party suing in an Ontario case had been that Canada incorporated by reference the law of England as of the year 1792, but the Supreme Court of Canada held that England did not recognize that tort in the year 1792, so it was not a part of the law of Canada.

as of 2016, alienation of affections was recognized in six United States jurisdictions: Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. The U. S. Supreme Court has declined to consider the constitutionality of such torts by writ of certiorari, notwithstanding academic commentary suggesting that these torts are unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and relevant modern precedents decided based upon it, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriage in the United States. The U. S. Supreme Court has addressed the tort in several cases that did not question its constitutionality, including U. S. v. Kaiser, 363 U. S. 299, 310 (1960) (dissenting opinion) (tax treatment of damages awards); Lykes v. U. S., 343 U. S. 118, 126 (1952) (tax deductions for litigation costs); Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U. S. 343, 373 (1948) (dissenting opinion) (full faith and credit afforded to divorce judgments); Shepard v. United States, 290 U. S. 96, 105 (1933) (admissibility of evidence); Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U. S. 473, 474 (1904) (availability of discharge of damages awards in bankruptcy); Waldron v. Waldron, 156 U. S. 361, 362–64 (1895) (preservation of objections to evidence when transcripts from a related proceeding are introduced). The U. S. Supreme Court has never granted certiorari on the constitutionality of the tort. The tort of alienation of affection was inherited as part of the common law. The law was codified in some states, the first one being New York with legislation in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U. S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states, including New York and Illinois. Most states have abolished the action by legislation, but some came to an end by judicial review. For example, in 1927, actions for alienation of affection were abolished in Louisiana as a result of Moulin v. Monteleone, 165 La. 169, 115 So. 447. See also South Carolina case Russo v. Sutton, 422 SE 2d 750 (1992), abolishing the heart balm action for alienation of affection.

In Hawaii, the plaintiff has to prove his spouse did not seek the defendant, and has to show a lack of any marital fault.

In 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court, in Fitch v. Valentine, in which the cheated husband, Johnny Valentine, received $750,000, upheld the constitutionality of the state's alienation of affection law.

In 2002 the law was reworded to be gender neutral, allowing wives to sue another woman. A man was awarded $950,000, later reduced to $400,000, in a 2002 case in which a South Dakota jury ruled that an orthopedic surgeon from Las Vegas had enticed the man's wife into an affair and had broken up their marriage. Punitive damages are limited to 20% of the defendant's worth. The same court confirmed alienation of affections as a cause of action in 2002. Among the notables cases were Jason Miles Williams, who attempted several times to sue the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leadership for causing his divorce by saying his wife would be damned if she did not divorce and Janice Peck suing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources after her husband left her for his new wife he met while posing as a couple to track poachers.