Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 3. Actions » Article 21. Miscellaneous Provisions
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-220 (2026)

Action for alienation of affection, breach of promise, criminal conversation and seduction abolished

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no civil action shall lie or be maintained in this Commonwealth for alienation of affection, breach of promise to marry, or criminal conversation upon which a cause of action arose or occurred on or after June 28, 1968.

B. No civil action for seduction shall lie or be maintained where the cause of action arose or accrued on or after July 1, 1974.

Code 1950, § 20-37.2; 1968, c. 716; 1974, c. 606; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: McGrath v. Dockendorf, 793 S.E.2d 336 (Va. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McGrath v. Dockendorf, 793 S.E.2d 336 (Va. 2016). · cites it 26× “McCULLOUGH **836 We resolve in this appeal whether the "heart balm" statute, Code § 8.01-220, bars an action in detinue for recovery of an engagement ring following the breakoff of the engagement.”
McDermott v. Reynolds, 530 S.E.2d 902 (Va. 2000). · cites it 24× “In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 8.01-220 bars a plaintiff’s action against his former wife’s paramour for intentional infliction of emotional distress, when the conduct alleged would support an action for alienation of affection, a cause of action specifically…”
Doe v. Zwelling, 620 S.E.2d 750 (Va. 2005). · cites it 17× “The trial court held that, notwithstanding the form of the action, the "overriding essential basis of the claim is one for alienation of affection which is barred by Va.Code § 8.01-220." The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case with prejudice.”
Hunt v. Hunt, 309 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 1981). · cites it 3× “Stat.Ann. tit. 19, § 167 (West Supp.1980-81); Md.”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “840 (1981); Va.Code § 8.01-220 (1950); W. Va. Code § 56-3 -2A (Supp.”
Whalen v. Rutherford, 86 Va. Cir. 560 (Nelson Cir. Ct. 2011). · cites it 9× “Rutherford that he was single, that he intended to many her, that he was in love with her, that he was financially solvent, that he was ready, willing, and able to pay the mortgage, that he intended to build a home for Whalen and himself on the property, and that he intended to…”
Thomas v. Siddiqui, 869 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1994). · cites it 4× “1993) (abolishing only criminal conversation); Tennessee, Tenn.Code.Ann. § 39-13-508 (1993) (abolishing criminal conversation and seduction but not mentioning alienation of affections); Texas, Tex.”
Wyman v. Wallace, 615 P.2d 452 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “1979); Va. Code § 8.01-220 (1977); Wis. Stat. Ann.”
Fundermann v. Mickelson, 304 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1981). · cites it 2× “Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-301(a) (1980); Mich.”
Wyatt v. McDermott, 725 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2012). · cites it 2× “We are not persuaded by the argument that we should interpret the General Assembly's statutory abolition of the cause of action for alienation of affection, found in Code § 8.01-220, as somehow precluding a recognition of a cause of action for tortious interference *562 with…”
Gilbert v. Barkes, 987 S.W.2d 772 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 2× “15, § 1001 (1997)); Virginia (Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-220 (Michie 1997)); West Virginia (W.”
Russo v. Sutton, 422 S.E.2d 750 (S.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “15, § 1001 (1989); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-220 (1984); W. Va. Code § 56-3 -2a (Supp.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-220(A) — 6 cases
McGrath v. Dockendorf, 793 S.E.2d 336 (Va. 2016). “McCULLOUGH **836 We resolve in this appeal whether the "heart balm" statute, Code § 8.01-220, bars an action in detinue for recovery of an engagement ring following the breakoff of the engagement.”
Doe v. Zwelling, 620 S.E.2d 750 (Va. 2005). “The trial court held that, notwithstanding the form of the action, the "overriding essential basis of the claim is one for alienation of affection which is barred by Va.Code § 8.01-220." The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case with prejudice.”
Pierce v. Anderson, 63 Va. Cir. 207 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003).
SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge, 760 S.E.2d 883 (W. Va. 2014).
SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge (W. Va. 2014).
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.