Alienation of affection is not a valid claim in Illinois. The state abolished the cause of action under 740 ILCS 5/7.1, effective January 1, 2016, so no one can sue a third party for interfering with a marriage based on facts occurring on or after that date.1Illinois General Assembly. 740 ILCS 5 – Alienation of Affections Abolition Act
What the Abolition Covers
Public Act 99-0090 amended three statutes at once and declared that heart balm lawsuits are “contrary to the public policy of this State.”2Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 099-0090 The language is categorical: an action may not be brought. There is no exception for egregious facts, no exception for long marriages, no exception based on who the third party was.
The one carve-out is timing. If the underlying conduct happened before January 1, 2016, the older version of the statute governs, and a timely-filed suit from that era can still be decided under the old rules.1Illinois General Assembly. 740 ILCS 5 – Alienation of Affections Abolition Act For anything more recent, the door is closed.
One correction worth making, because it circulates online: the abolishing provision is 740 ILCS 5/7.1, not 750 ILCS 65/1. That second citation deals with a different question entirely — whether spouses can sue each other in tort during marriage.
Related Claims That Were Also Abolished
The same 2016 legislation wiped out two neighboring causes of action. If you were considering either as a workaround, neither is available.2Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 099-0090
- Criminal conversation, which let a spouse sue a third party for having sexual relations with their husband or wife, was abolished under 740 ILCS 50/7.1.
- Breach of promise to marry, which let someone sue over a broken engagement, was abolished under 740 ILCS 15/10.1.
Together with alienation of affection, these are what commentators called the “heart balm” torts. All three are gone in Illinois for any conduct on or after January 1, 2016.
What You Can Still Do
Abolition of the tort does not mean every form of spousal injury is unaddressable. Two routes still exist, and they target different kinds of harm.
Dissipation in a Divorce
Illinois is a no-fault state, and both the property division and maintenance statutes direct courts to decide those issues “without regard to marital misconduct.”3Illinois General Assembly. 750 ILCS 5/503 – Disposition of Property and Debts4Illinois General Assembly. 750 ILCS 5/504 – Maintenance An affair, standing alone, will not change how assets or support are divided.
What does matter is money. If your spouse used marital funds for an affair — hotel stays, gifts, trips, rent for someone else — that spending can be claimed as dissipation of marital assets. A successful dissipation claim can shift the property division in your favor to account for what was wasted.3Illinois General Assembly. 750 ILCS 5/503 – Disposition of Property and Debts
The procedure has firm deadlines. You must file a notice of intent to claim dissipation no later than 60 days before trial or 30 days after discovery closes, and the dissipation itself has to fall within statutory time limits. The frame to use is financial, not emotional: you are not arguing that your spouse cheated and should pay for it; you are arguing that specific dollars were spent for a non-marital purpose and should be accounted for.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
If a third party’s conduct was genuinely outrageous — not just hurtful, but extreme — a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress may fit. Illinois requires conduct beyond all bounds of decency, intent or reckless disregard, direct causation, and severe emotional harm.
An affair by itself will almost never meet that standard. Courts are looking for behavior that would shock a reasonable person: sustained harassment, deliberate cruelty involving children, or conduct designed to psychologically damage someone. The claim is about what the defendant did to you, not about the condition of the marriage.
Filing an Abolished Claim Carries Its Own Risk
Bringing an alienation of affection suit in Illinois today is more than a dead end. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, every court filing carries an implicit certification that it is warranted by existing law.5Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 – Signing of Pleadings, Motions and Other Documents – Sanctions A claim the legislature has expressly abolished does not meet that standard.
Rule 137 sanctions can fall on the attorney, the party, or both. Most often that means paying the other side’s reasonable fees and costs, though courts can also strike filings or dismiss the case outright. The test is objective: whether a reasonable attorney, after reasonable inquiry, would have believed the filing was warranted. When the statute says plainly that no action may be brought, that question answers itself.
Where These Lawsuits Still Exist
If you have seen recent news coverage of large alienation of affection verdicts, they almost certainly come from another state. North Carolina remains the most active jurisdiction for these claims, and Utah, Hawaii, Mississippi, and South Dakota still permit some version of them. Illinois does not, and residency and conduct in Illinois generally keep an Illinois dispute inside Illinois law. Before pursuing anything in another state’s courts, talk to a lawyer licensed there about whether the facts and parties actually support jurisdiction.