Raleigh divorce attorney Charles R. Ullman appeared on Fox News Digital to discuss a high-profile case involving North Carolina's "homewrecker" law. The news outlet reports that former Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is the defendant in a North Carolina alienation of affection claim, accused of having an affair with her married bodyguard. In these cases, a spouse sues a third party who has interfered with their marriage and caused them to lose their spouse's love and affection.
The bodyguard's wife filed the lawsuit against Sinema in Moore County Superior Court. She claims the senator knowingly pursued her husband, even though he was married with kids, sending him romantic messages, giving him gifts, and taking him on trips.
As North Carolina is one of the few states that still has a "homewrecker" law, this story has sparked debate over whether someone who breaks up a marriage is also responsible. However, Ullman sees alienation of affection claims as a vital path for a wronged spouse to hold an affair partner legally accountable for the harm caused to them and their marriage.
Ullman, a Board-Certified Specialist in Family Law by the North Carolina State Bar with 25 years of experience, told Fox News Digital, "I think it's more about trying to find a remedy. Giving the person that's been wronged an opportunity at getting some type of relief."
The case underscores the importance of understanding North Carolina's unique legal landscape regarding marital misconduct. While many states have abolished alienation of affection claims, North Carolina retains this tort, providing a potential avenue for recourse for spouses who have suffered due to infidelity. The outcome of this lawsuit could influence public perception and legal precedent, particularly as it involves a high-profile political figure.
Ullman's perspective highlights the broader implications of the law: it offers a mechanism for accountability beyond the divorce proceedings, allowing a wronged spouse to seek damages directly from the third party. This can include compensation for emotional distress, loss of companionship, and even punitive damages in egregious cases. The availability of such claims may also serve as a deterrent against extramarital affairs, reinforcing the societal value placed on marital fidelity.
As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by legal experts and the public alike, given the celebrity status of the defendant and the controversial nature of the law. The debate over whether alienation of affection claims are outdated or still serve a necessary purpose is likely to intensify, with this lawsuit serving as a focal point.
