## Facts

- Katherine Louise Helsel and David Helsel married in 1996 and had two children.
- The marriage experienced difficulties beginning around 1999.
- David developed a friendship with his chiropractor, Dr. Sivi Noellsch, before the birth of the couple’s second child in May 2000.
- Shortly after the second child’s birth, David filed for divorce; the marriage was dissolved in January 2001.
- After the dissolution, David and Dr. Noellsch developed a physical and social relationship; David later married Dr. Noellsch in February 2002.
- In March 2001, Katherine sued Dr. Noellsch for alienation of affection, alleging intentional interference with the marriage that caused its failure.

## Issues

1. Whether the common-law tort of alienation of affection remains a viable cause of action in Missouri.
2. Whether Missouri should abolish alienation of affection as inconsistent with modern public policy and Missouri precedent, including the prior abolition of criminal conversation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial court’s judgment for Katherine.
- The Court held that alienation of affection is abolished in Missouri.
- Because the cause of action no longer exists, the plaintiff’s verdict and damages award could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may modify or abolish common-law causes of action when their premises and effects conflict with contemporary law and public policy.
- Alienation of affection originated in property-based conceptions of marriage and consortium that are inconsistent with modern understandings of marriage as a relationship between legal equals.
- Alienation of affection and criminal conversation share common historical origins and rationales; retaining alienation of affection after abolishing criminal conversation would be inconsistent.
- Public-policy objections support abolition, including the tort’s tendency to invite retaliatory litigation and intrusive examination of private marital conduct, with doubtful value in preserving marriages.

## Conclusion

Missouri no longer recognizes alienation of affection as a cause of action; judgments based on that tort must be reversed because the claim has been abolished as an obsolete and policy-inconsistent common-law doctrine.


Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W.3d 231 (Mo. 2003)