North Carolina Protects South Carolina Marriages Too

On 4 December 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a Mecklenburg Trial Court’s decision to allow a case to proceed by a South Carolina Plaintiff against a South Carolina Defendant for alienation of affection and criminal conversation.

Daniel Monroe Smith filed a Complaint against Jerry Mason Drumm in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County in October 2010 claiming that Jerry seduced, enticed and alienated the affections of Daniel’s wife, Sandra, from him.  Daniel sought monetary damages from Jerry based on allegations of adultery for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. At the time the lawsuit was filed, both Daniel and Jerry lived in South Carolina.

Daniel and his wife Sandra had been together for seventeen years, five as husband and wife.  Prior to their marriage, Sandra and Jerry (the Defendant) had been high school sweethearts and had been engaged to be married.

Beginning in March 2009, when Sandra was visiting her mother in a Mecklenburg County Hospital, she allegedly began an affair with Jerry in the State of North Carolina.  At that time, Jerry was married and living in Charlotte.  In July 2009, Jerry moved to South Carolina.

Jerry filed Motions to Dismiss the lawsuit for various reasons including that he did not believe the North Carolina Courts had jurisdiction over him since he lived in South Carolina and that North Carolina should not be concerned with protecting the marriage of South Carolina’s citizens — a state where these torts have been abolished.

The Court of Appeals ruled that since the affair began in the State of North Carolina and because Jerry lived in the state at the time the affair commenced, the lawsuit against him could proceed.  The full decision is available as Smith v. Drumm (COA 12-492).

The decision, while unpublished, is important because many have suggested that the purpose of these torts are to protect the sanctity of marriage for North Carolinians and therefore a case such as this where there are no North Carolinians to protect would allow the Court to clarify the scope of these torts. For now, it appears that N.C. will protect S.C. marriages too.