Reinstituting the maintenance of actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation
Summary
House Bill 4979 would restore two abolished civil causes of action in West Virginia: alienation of affection and criminal conversation. The bill adds a new section to Chapter 55 allowing a person to sue a natural person or juridical person for conduct that allegedly interfered with a marriage, and it removes the existing statutory prohibition in Chapter 56 that has barred such suits since 1969. The bill states that these claims may be brought notwithstanding other law, but only for conduct occurring before the spouses physically separate with the intent that the separation be permanent.
The bill also imposes a three-year statute of limitations, measured from the last act giving rise to the claim. In practical terms, it would reopen the courthouse doors for marital-interference lawsuits that have long been unavailable in West Virginia, while limiting liability to pre-separation conduct and setting a clear filing deadline. The measure is framed as a reinstitution of common-law-style relationship tort claims and would affect both individual defendants and potentially entities described as juridical persons.
Impact
HB4979 would materially change West Virginia tort law by repealing the long-standing statutory bar on civil actions for alienation of affections and allowing criminal conversation claims as a new cause of action. It would amend §56-3-2a to remove the current prohibition and add §55-7-31 to define when such actions may be maintained, who may be sued, when liability ends, and the applicable limitations period. The bill would primarily affect spouses, alleged third parties to a marriage, and courts handling domestic-relations-related civil claims.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive among the sponsors, who introduced the bill specifically to reinstitute these claims. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or broader legislative debate to gauge. The measure’s framing suggests an intent to expand remedies for marital interference, but the absence of discussion leaves the level of support or concern in the legislature unclear.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether West Virginia should revive causes of action that many jurisdictions have abolished or sharply limited. Supporters may view the bill as restoring accountability for interference with marriage, while critics may argue that these claims invite intrusive litigation, are difficult to prove, and can be used coercively in private disputes. Another likely issue is the bill’s application to both natural persons and juridical persons, which could raise questions about the scope of potential defendants and the reach of the new liability.