Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, § 47A (2026)
Breach of contract to marry not actionable
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 47A. Breach of contract to marry shall not constitute an injury or wrong recognized by law, and no action, suit or proceeding shall be maintained therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Shea v. Cameron, 93 N.E.3d 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).
Shea v. Cameron, 93 N.E.3d 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “Not only does G. L. c. 207, § 47A, preclude claims of pure breach of a marriage contract, it also "abolished any right of action, whatever its form, that was based upon such a breach," including "[a]ctions in tort for fraud.”
Pinnick v. Cleary, 271 N.E.2d 592 (Mass. 1971). “The constitutionality of our "Heart Balm" statute, G.L.c. 207, § 47A, was not decided in Thibault v.”
Stanard v. Bolin, 565 P.2d 94 (Wash. 1977). “§ 5-301 (1974); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 207, § 47A (West); Mich.”
T.F. v. B.L., 813 N.E.2d 1244 (Mass. 2004). “at 161 , citing G. L. c. 207, § 47A. We also discussed earlier cases that had “indicated a reluctance to enforce prior agreements that bind individuals to future family relationships.”
A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000). “In G. L. c. 207, § 47A, the Legislature abolished the cause of action for the breach of a promise to marry.”
De Cicco v. Barker, 159 N.E.2d 534 (Mass. 1959). “The defendant demurred to the plaintiff’s bill on the ground that the suit was prohibited by G. L. c. 207, § 47A. The demurrer was overruled by interlocutory decree and the defendant appealed.”
Alkhairy v. Ahmad, 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 260 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). “G.L.c. 207, §47A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 In the time frame between 2011 and 2012, the families of Ashraf Alkhaiiy (“Alkhaiiy” or the “plaintiff’) and Ridwan Ahmad (“Ahmad” or the “defendant”) became acquainted.”
MacCleave v. Merch., 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 315 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “Breach of Contract G.L.c. 207, §47A states “(b)reach of contract to marry shall not constitute an injury or wrong recognized by law, and no action, suit or proceeding shall be maintained therefor.”
Bruce Johnson v. Caroline Settino, 245 N.E.3d 196 (Mass. 2024). “at 458 , we addressed the question whether the so-called "heart balm act," G. L. c. 207, § 47A, inserted by St. 1938, c.”
Johnson v. Settino, 495 Mass. 42 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). “Obviating the need for such inquiry is presumably one of the principal reasons behind the enactment of the Heart Balm Act, G. L. c. 207, § 47A. De Cicco ruled that suits to recover engagement rings stand as an exception to the otherwise broad reach of that statute.”
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.