Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdefendantdamagesmotiondue processcommon lawmotion to dismiss
plaintiffdefendantmotiondue processmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Vance v. County of Ramsey, Minnesota, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 7490033
View Case »
Bransteter v. Moore, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 152317
View Case »
Michael v. Michael, Not Reported in S.E.2d, 43 Va. Cir. 150, 1997 WL 1070654
View Case »
In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal.App.4th 1214, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 339, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6202, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7909
View Case »
Liceaga v. Baez, 2019 IL App (1st) 181170, 126 N.E.3d 682, 430 Ill.Dec. 594
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ammarell v. France, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 2843441

Facts

Summer Ammarell married Ryan Ammarell in Alabama in 2012, and their marriage was characterized by genuine love and affection. However, in December 2015, Ryan Ammarell began an affair with Megan France in North Carolina, which included intimate relations and explicit communications. The affair was revealed to Summer Ammarell in May 2016, leading to emotional distress and domestic issues, prompting her to seek legal redress against France for the damages caused by the affair.

On February 25, 2012, Plaintiff married Ryan Ammarell in Alabama. It was in North Carolina in December 2015, however, that Mr. Ammarell met Megan France (“Defendant”) and began to forge a second life, resulting in an affair.

Issue

The main legal issue is whether North Carolina's common law causes of action for alienation of affection and criminal conversation are unconstitutional as claimed by the defendant, Megan France.

Defendant argues that criminal conversation and alienation of affection are unconstitutional because: (1) these claims violate the Due Process Clause; and (2) the alienation of affection claim impermissibly infringes on Defendant's First Amendment rights.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles surrounding the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, which require proof of a valid marriage, the existence of love and affection, and wrongful acts by the defendant that caused the loss of that affection.

Under criminal conversation, Plaintiff must show “[an] actual marriage between the spouses and sexual intercourse between defendant and the plaintiff's spouse during the coverture.”

Analysis

The court analyzed the constitutional challenges raised by France, determining that the claims for alienation of affection and criminal conversation do not violate substantive due process rights or First Amendment rights. The court found that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage and that the claims were rationally related to that interest.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Alienation of affection and criminal conversation do not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights.

Conclusion

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied France's motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims for alienation of affection and criminal conversation are constitutional under North Carolina law.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge's M&R, (Doc. No. 15), is ADOPTED; and 2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), is DENIED.

Who won?

Summer Ammarell prevailed in the case as the court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Megan France, allowing her claims to proceed based on the sufficiency of the allegations in her complaint.

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Alienation of affection and criminal conversation do not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights.

You must be