Also known as: heartbalm damages · heart-balm damages · heartbalm · heart balm actions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Damages recoverable in a quasi-tort, quasi-contract action for breach of promise to marry or similar heartbalm claims. Recovery reaches actual expenditures made in preparation for marriage along with loss to reputation, mental anguish, and injury to health. Recovery excludes loss of expected benefits such as social or financial position from the marriage itself.
Hana Hashimoto and Hunter Hughes signed a premarital agreement that required the party ending the engagement without cause to pay the other $500,000. Hunter later called off the wedding. Hana sued to enforce the payment. The court refused to enforce the clause because the jurisdiction had abolished heartbalm actions by statute and the fixed sum operated as a penalty substituting for barred expectancy recovery.
Heidi Henderson sued her former fiancé after he ended their engagement and publicly humiliated her. She sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress rather than traditional breach of promise. The court allowed the separate tort claim to proceed because abolition of heartbalm actions did not bar distinct causes of action that did not implicate the same policy concerns.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff may recover actual out-of-pocket losses incurred in preparation for the marriage such as nonrefundable deposits or job relocation costs. Recovery also extends to tort-style harms including mental anguish, reputational injury, and related health effects. Recovery does not extend to the lost expected benefits of the marriage itself such as lifetime financial support or elevated social position.
Supporting sources
Such payments function as private substitutes for abolished heartbalm claims and operate as penalties rather than true allocations of economic risk. The jurisdiction's abolition statute reflects a policy against compensating emotional upset, reputational harm, and anticipated social or financial advantages from a marriage that never occurred. Courts therefore decline to enforce the clause directly or by rewriting it into a reimbursement obligation.
Supporting sources
No. Abolition targets the specific heartbalm causes of action such as breach of promise to marry. A separate tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress may still proceed if it rests on distinct facts and does not implicate the same public policies that prompted abolition of the heartbalm actions.
Supporting sources