The New Mexico Supreme Court issued an opinion Sunday addressing whether to abolish the common law tort of alienation of affections, a legal claim that allows spouses to sue third parties for interfering with their marriage. The case, *Butterworth v. Jackson*, was certified from the New Mexico Court of Appeals and involves James F. Butterworth as plaintiff-appellee, Ethan Jackson as defendant, and Dr. Sarah Smith as intervenor-appellant.
The tort of alienation of affections permits a spouse to seek damages from someone who allegedly destroyed the marriage by engaging in conduct that alienated the other spouse's affections. This legal theory has deep historical roots but has become increasingly controversial in modern jurisprudence.
According to the court's opinion, New Mexico first recognized alienation of affections in 1923 in *Birchfield v. Birchfield*. However, the court noted that it has not relied upon the tort since 1925, citing *Murray v. Murray* as the last case to address the claim. This 100-year gap in judicial reliance on the tort raises questions about its continued relevance and applicability in contemporary legal practice.
The case originated in the district court under Judge Jeffrey A. Shannon before proceeding to the Court of Appeals, which ultimately certified the question to the state's highest court. Certification typically occurs when an appellate court encounters a novel or significant legal issue that would benefit from definitive resolution by the supreme court.
Dr. Sarah Smith, represented by attorneys from Gerstein Harrow LLP including Jason Harrow from Los Angeles and Charles Gerstein from Washington, D.C., as well as local counsel from Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, serves as the intervenor-appellant in the case. Defendant Ethan Jackson is represented by Aaron J. Wolf from Cuddy & McCarthy LLP in Santa Fe. Plaintiff Butterworth is represented by Gary W. Boyle of Boyle Law Office, also in Santa Fe.
The alienation of affections tort historically allowed married individuals to seek monetary damages from third parties who allegedly interfered with their marriages. Critics argue that the tort is outdated and inconsistent with modern views of marriage as a partnership between equals rather than a property-like relationship where one spouse could claim ownership over the other's affections.
Many states have abolished alienation of affections claims through legislative action or judicial decisions. The tort has faced criticism for encouraging vindictive litigation, creating potential for abuse through threats of expensive lawsuits, and failing to serve legitimate policy interests in contemporary society.
Supporters of maintaining the tort argue that it provides recourse for genuine victims of marital interference and serves as a deterrent against conduct that deliberately destroys marriages. They contend that the tort recognizes the real emotional and financial harm that can result from third-party interference in marital relationships.
The New Mexico Supreme Court's consideration of this issue comes at a time when many jurisdictions are reevaluating traditional tort claims that may no longer serve modern policy objectives. The court must balance respect for established legal precedent against evolving social norms and legal principles.
Chief Justice Thomson authored the opinion, though the document provided appears to be a slip opinion that may contain deviations from the final authenticated version. The court's analysis will likely examine whether the tort serves legitimate state interests, whether it conflicts with modern constitutional principles, and whether its continued recognition serves justice in contemporary New Mexico.
The case presents significant implications for family law practice in New Mexico. If the court abolishes the tort, it would eliminate a potential avenue for legal recourse that some parties have pursued in cases involving alleged marital interference. Conversely, maintaining the tort could continue to expose individuals to potential liability for conduct that arguably falls within protected spheres of personal relationships and free association.
The outcome may also influence how other states approach similar questions about the continued viability of traditional tort claims that originated in different social and legal contexts. Legal scholars and practitioners will likely monitor this case closely as an indicator of judicial attitudes toward evolving common law doctrines.
The timing of this decision, more than a century after the tort's initial recognition in New Mexico, underscores the ongoing tension between legal stability and adaptive justice. The supreme court's ruling will determine whether this particular vestige of historical tort law continues to operate in New Mexico or joins the growing number of jurisdictions that have concluded alienation of affections claims no longer serve contemporary legal objectives.