2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 20 - Actions
Part 2 - Actions Abolished - Marital
§ 13-20-202. Civil Causes Abolished
All civil causes of action for breach of promise to marry, alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and seduction are hereby abolished.
History. Source: L. 37: P. 403, § 1. CSA: C. 24A, § 1. CRS 53: § 41-3-1 . C.R.S. 1963: § 41-3-1 .
ANNOTATION
The general assembly has abolished the legal duties and rights of actions for alienation of affection even though they were recognized at common law. Goldberg v. Musim, 162 Colo. 461 , 427 P.2d 698 (1967).
It can do so under inherent police power. The general assembly had the power to abolish causes of action under the inherent police power of the state. Goldberg v. Musim, 162 Colo. 461 , 427 P.2d 698 (1967).
This section does not violate § 6 of art. II, Colo. Const., for the general assembly has the power to abolish substantive rights in order to attain a permissible legislative object. Goldberg v. Musim, 162 Colo. 461 , 427 P.2d 698 (1967).
Heart balm statute precludes only those causes of action, such as claims for criminal conversation, alienation of affections or seduction, that are specifically listed in the statute; thus, wife's claim against Catholic clergyman with whom she and husband had met for marriage counseling, for fiduciary breach and extreme and outrageous conduct in inducing wife to engage in sexual relationship with him, was not barred by heart balm statute. Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1988).
Limitation on application of section. This section should be applied no further than to bar actions for damages suffered from loss of marriage, humiliation, and other direct consequences of the breach, and should not affect rights and duties determinable by common-law principles. In re Heinzman, 40 Colo. App. 262, 579 P.2d 638 (1977), aff'd, 198 Colo. 36 , 596 P.2d 61 (1979).
This section cannot be relied upon to disallow recovery of conditional gift, particularly when the donee breaks the engagement to be married. In re Heinzman, 40 Colo. App. 262, 579 P.2d 638 (1977), aff'd, 198 Colo. 36 , 596 P.2d 61 (1979).
