## Facts

- Felix Magierowski sued Donald Buckley alleging Buckley seduced Felix’s unmarried adult daughter, Stephanie, under a promise of marriage.
- Stephanie lived with her father and worked at a local plant; the complaint alleged pregnancy left her unable to work and earn wages as before.
- The complaint sought $25,000 for loss of services/earnings and $25,000 punitive damages, also alleging medical/hospital expenses and the father’s shame, humiliation, and nervous shock.
- Buckley asserted the New Jersey Heart Balm Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1 et seq.) barred the claims and also argued the father could not recover for loss of services of a child who had reached majority and had been emancipated.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Buckley and dismissed the complaint as barred by the Heart Balm Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a father may maintain a common-law action for loss of services of an employed adult daughter allegedly seduced under a promise of marriage.
2. Whether the Heart Balm Act bars a father’s loss-of-services and punitive-damages claims when the substance of the action is seduction under a promise of marriage.
3. Whether the Heart Balm Act is unconstitutional if construed to bar such an action.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
- The court held the Heart Balm Act barred the father’s claims because, in substance, they arose from seduction under a promise of marriage.
- The court rejected an interpretation that would permit plaintiffs to avoid the statute by pleading heart-balm allegations as “loss of services” or other economic damages.
- The court upheld the statute’s constitutionality as applied.

## Legal Principles

- Courts assess the substance of a claim, not its label, to determine whether it is an abolished “heart balm” action.
- N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1 et seq. abolishes causes of action whose gravamen is seduction or promise-to-marry-type injury, including attempts to recast those claims as parental loss-of-services suits.
- The Legislature may abolish common-law causes of action, and eliminating heart-balm-type claims does not, without more, violate due process or equal protection.
- The adult status and potential emancipation of the daughter further weaken a traditional common-law “loss of services” theory and support treating the suit as a prohibited heart-balm claim.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of a father’s suit seeking damages based on his adult daughter’s alleged seduction under a promise of marriage, holding the Heart Balm Act barred the action and was constitutional as applied.


Magierowski v. Buckley, 39 N.J. Super. 534, 121 A.2d 749 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)