Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, § 47A (2026)

Breach of contract to marry not actionable

✓ current as of July 2026

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).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shea v. Cameron, 93 N.E.3d 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “§ 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). · cites it 7× “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). · cites it 2× “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 (Mass. 2024). · cites it 3× “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 (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.