## Facts

- Rebecca P. Jones sued Susan L. Skelley, her husband’s extramarital partner, for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.
- Rebecca and her husband married in North Carolina (1974) and moved to South Carolina (1979), where they continuously resided and later divorced.
- The husband spent several months living in North Carolina beginning in summer 2003, though the marital domicile remained South Carolina.
- Skelley argued most alleged alienating conduct and any injury occurred in South Carolina, which has abolished both torts, so the North Carolina court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or should apply South Carolina law.
- Skelley conceded personal jurisdiction by stipulation.
- Skelley admitted she had sexual intercourse with Rebecca’s husband in North Carolina in June 2004 while the marriage still existed.
- The trial court granted Skelley’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Rebecca appealed; she also had moved for summary judgment on criminal conversation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the alienation of affections claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the assertion that the injury occurred only in South Carolina.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the criminal conversation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where sexual intercourse occurred in North Carolina but the spouses resided in South Carolina.
3. Whether summary judgment for the defendant was proper given record evidence about where the conduct and resulting injury occurred.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment and dismissing both claims.
- For alienation of affections, the record showed alleged alienating acts occurred in North Carolina as well as South Carolina, creating at least a factual dispute about the place of injury under North Carolina’s conflict-of-laws rules.
- For criminal conversation, the place of injury is where the sexual intercourse occurred; the admitted intercourse in North Carolina was sufficient to support adjudication under North Carolina law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- North Carolina applies lex loci delicti in tort actions, generally applying the law of the place where the injury occurred.
- In alienation of affections, the place of injury is tied to where the defendant’s alienating conduct occurred; if conduct occurred in multiple states, summary judgment is improper when the record supports North Carolina-based acts.
- In criminal conversation, the injury occurs where the sexual intercourse occurs, not where the plaintiff resides or where the spouses are domiciled.
- A single act of sexual intercourse in North Carolina during an existing marriage can support liability for criminal conversation, including after separation.
- Another state’s abolition of the tort is a choice-of-law consideration and does not, by itself, eliminate North Carolina courts’ authority to adjudicate claims based on conduct occurring in North Carolina.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reinstated both heart-balm claims, holding that North Carolina could apply its tort law when record evidence showed alienating acts and admitted intercourse occurred in North Carolina, and that South Carolina’s contrary policy did not justify dismissal as a jurisdictional matter.


Jones v. Skelley, 195 N.C. App. 500, 673 S.E.2d 385 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)