Also known as: heartbalm actions · heart balm action · heartbalm action · heartbalm
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A category of civil claims historically available for broken engagements and related personal harms. Where retained after statutory abolition in most states, the claims function as hybrid quasi-tort and quasi-contract actions. Recovery extends to actual expenditures made in preparation for marriage as well as damages for reputational injury, mental anguish, and health impairment, but excludes compensation for lost expected social or financial benefits from the marriage itself.
Holly Hayes quit her nursing position and surrendered her apartment after Henry Hoffman promised marriage and relocation support. Hoffman ended the engagement before any move or ceremony occurred. Hayes sued in a jurisdiction that still permits the action. The court allowed recovery of her documented reliance losses and proven emotional distress but barred any award for the lifetime financial support she had expected from the marriage.
Hassan Hakim gave Hana Huang a custom smart ring containing company stock options while announcing their engagement to colleagues. After the company valuation rose sharply, both parties agreed to call off the wedding. Huang retained the ring and claimed it as earned compensation. Hakim sued for return of the ring and options under the retained heart balm framework, seeking only proven preparation costs rather than any expectancy tied to the failed marriage.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseA plaintiff may recover actual expenditures made in preparation for the marriage and tort-style harms such as reputational injury, mental anguish, and health impairment. Expectancy damages for lost social position or financial advantages from the marriage itself remain unavailable.
Supporting sources
Such clauses function as private substitutes for abolished heart balm claims and operate as penalties rather than genuine allocations of risk. Courts decline enforcement to avoid circumventing the statutory policy against compensating emotional upset or lost marital expectations.
Supporting sources
No. Lifetime support constitutes an expectancy interest in the benefits of the marriage and is excluded even where the action survives. Only reliance losses and certain personal harms qualify for recovery.
Supporting sources
The tort aspect permits recovery for noneconomic harms such as mental anguish and reputational injury and may support punitive damages upon a showing of malice. The contract aspect limits recovery to actual reliance expenditures rather than full expectation damages.
Supporting sources