Question:
Where can I find download or read about the laws of ohio on alienation of affection or homewreckers?
Answer:
In McCutcheon v. Brooks (1988), 37 Ohio App.3d 110, 524 N.E.2d 202, the court held that torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, abolished by R.C. 2305.29 (see enclosed), are not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The General Assembly intended that the torts of alienation of affections and criminal conversation be eliminated regardless of what name they are called or the severity of the misconduct involved. If the torts were to be recognized again under the name of intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of the can of worms that existed before would be reopened again.
This reasoning equally applies to an action based on a breach of a promise to marry. It is the intent of the legislature in R.C. 2305.29 to abolish the tort of breach of a promise to marry. This tort is also not revived by the subsequent recognition of the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
R.C. 2305.29 reads as follows:
"No person shall be liable in civil damages for any breach of a promise to marry, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation, and no person shall be liable in civil damages for seduction of any person eighteen years of age or older who is not incompetent, as defined in section 2111.01 of the Revised Code."
