Establishing Criminal Conversation and Alienation of Affection Claims in North Carolina

Claims of criminal conversation and alienation of affection are available in cases where one spouse engaged in an extramarital affair. These claims may be brought against the unfaithful spouse’s paramour in North Carolina, and you don’t always need strict evidence of sexual relations. Circumstantial evidence is often sufficient.

Chagaris v. Harden

In a Court of Appeals case regarding criminal conversation and alienation of affection, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant, determined that Plaintiff had established that a genuine issue of material fact existed for his claims of criminal conversation and alienation of affection.

Plaintiff had also included intentional infliction of severe emotional distress and negligent infliction of severe emotional distress in his original claims in the trial court but failed to address them in his appeal. Therefore, those claims were not considered by the appellate court.

Criminal Conversation

Claims of criminal conversation only require that the filing party show they were married and that their spouse had sexual intercourse with the named defendant during the marriage. Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish sexual intercourse occurred for the purpose of criminal conversation claims in North Carolina. All that was required of Plaintiff in Chagaris v. Harden to defend against the motion for summary judgment was to provide relevant evidence that would cause a reasonable person to accept it as adequate. Direct evidence is not needed.

The following evidence was submitted in this case:

• Plaintiff’s wife’s admission that she committed adultery
• Phone call logs between Defendant and Plaintiff’s wife
• Hotel reservations
• Texts between Defendant and Plaintiff’s wife
• The wife’s physical description of her paramour that matched Defendant’s appearance
• Testimony from Defendant about when he met Plaintiff’s wife that aligned with the timeframe of when the infidelity occurred

Plaintiff only had circumstantial evidence to support his claim for criminal conversation, but this, combined with testimony and other evidence, provided sufficient basis to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court’s order of summary judgment was improper.

Alienation of Affection

Plaintiff needed to prove that he and his wife were in a loving and affectionate marriage, that the love and affection were alienated, and that Defendant was the cause of this alienation through malicious acts. Plaintiff claims he and his wife were happily married prior to their separation. Both he and his wife stated that the marriage ended due to the wife’s affair. The third element – malicious acts of Defendant caused alienation of affection – can be established by showing Defendant engaged in any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.

Because Plaintiff had sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue regarding Defendant and Plaintiff’s wife having sexual intercourse, then a claim of alienation of affection was also supported by sufficient evidence to move forward with the claim in the lower court.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment in Plaintiff’s claims for criminal conversation and alienation of affection. It reversed the trial court’s order of summary judgment in the two claims and remanded the case.