No action may be brought upon any cause arising from alienation of affections or from breach of a promise to marry.
(1967, P.A. 275, S. 1; P.A. 82-160, S. 238.)
History: P.A. 82-160 changed wording slightly and deleted language which limiting applicability to causes arising “after October 1, 1967”.
The Heart Balm Act does not affect common law principles governing actions for the return of property transferred in reliance on fraudulent representations. 180 C. 369, 370. Cited. 240 C. 549.
When legislature enacted section, it expressed its intent to abolish common law actions seeking damages for a particular type of conduct, regardless of the name that plaintiff assigns to that conduct, and in determining whether an action is barred under section, court will consider underlying conduct alleged in plaintiff's complaint. 80 CA 180.
Action for criminal conversation is not barred in this state by section, which specifically prohibits actions for alienation of affections and breach of promise. 28 CS 487.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case:
Bouchard v. Sundberg, 834 A.2d 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
Bouchard v. Sundberg, 834 A.2d 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 9× “The plaintiff contends that because General Statutes § 52-572b 14 does not discuss parental alienation, such *192 a cause of action was not considered by the legislature and is not necessarily prohibited by the statute.”
Zamstein v. Marvasti, 692 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 52-572b. 11 Even if the statute refers to the abolition of actions involving the alienation of affections of a child as well as a spouse, we know of no common law or statutory cause of action that recognizes the cause of action for which the plaintiff…”
Piccininni v. Hajus, 429 A.2d 886 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 8× “The language of General Statutes § 52-572b, the "Heart Balm Act," does not, it is true, provide clear guidance about what forms of actions are brought within its prohibition of suits "from alienation of affections or from breach of a promise to marry.”
Marafi v. El Achchabi, 225 Conn. App. 415 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 10× “In response, the defendant filed a motion to strike that count, claiming that it was barred by General Statutes § 52-572b;15 the trial court agreed and granted that motion.”
Hunt v. Hunt, 309 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 1981).
· cites it 4× “§ 13-20-202 (1973); Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572b (1977); D.C.”
Veeder v. Kennedy, 1999 SD 23 (S.D. 1999).
· cites it 2× “5 (West 1982); Colorado, ColoRevStat § 13-20-202 (1998); Connecticut, ConnGenStat § 52-572b (1997); Delaware, DelCodeAnn tit 10, § 3924 (1975); District of Columbia, DCCodeAnn § 16-923 (1998); Florida, FlaStat ch 771.”
Fundermann v. Mickelson, 304 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1981).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-20-202 (1973); Conn.Gen.Stat. Ann. § 52-572b (1977); D.C.”
Gilbert v. Barkes, 987 S.W.2d 772 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-20-202 (1997)); Connecticut (Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572b (West 1991)); Delaware (Del.”
Bearbower v. Merry, 266 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 1978).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-20-202 (1973); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572b to 52-572f (1977); Del.”
Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 2007).
“§ 13-20-202 (1973); Connecticut, Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 52-572b (1984); District of Columbia, D.”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983).
“§ 13-20-202 (1973); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572b (1983); Del.Code Ann.”
O'NEIL v. Schuckardt, 733 P.2d 693 (Idaho 1986).
“1973, 13-20-202; Conn.Gen.Stat. Ann. § 52-572b; 10 Del.Code § 3924; D.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.