In North Carolina, the civil claim that lets a person sue their partner’s lover for meddling with a marriage—known as alienation of affections—continues to appear in roughly 150 new cases each year in the state.
From Ammel v. Sinema, decided Friday by Judge David Bragdon (M.D.N.C.):
Ms. Ammel wedded Matthew Ammel in 2010. From 2014 until November 2024, the couple and their three children lived in Whispering Pines, North Carolina.
Mr. Ammel met Ms. Sinema in August 2022 after he retired from the military. At that juncture, Ms. Sinema was serving as a United States Senator representing Arizona. During her Senate tenure, she maintained homes in both Arizona and Washington, D.C. After leaving the Senate, she became a professor at Arizona State University and an attorney affiliated with Hogan Lovells Cadwalader in Washington, D.C….
Their affair unfolded across California, New York, and Colorado. When Ms. Ammel learned of the relationship, the couple separated, and she brought a lawsuit against Sinema asserting alienation of affections—a tort still recognized and frequently pursued in North Carolina courts. (For example, in the most recent fiscal year, North Carolina courts saw about 150 filings of alienation-of-affections actions; the tort is also recognized in Hawaii, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah.)
To establish an alienation-of-affections claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) a marriage existed with love and affection between the spouses; (2) that love and affection were alienated; and (3) the defendant’s malicious acts caused the loss of that love and affection. A malicious act includes any intentional conduct likely to affect the marital relationship. However, when the defendant has engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse, malice is conclusively presumed.
The evidence described in the plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that although the Ammels’ marriage was turbulent in 2024, there remained genuine love and affection, as reflected in their text messages. In October 2024, the couple celebrated an anniversary trip that included intimate moments and messages expressing love. The record also shows that the love and affection were diverted by Mr. Ammel’s relationship with Ms. Sinema; and because that relationship included sexual activity, malice is presumed.
Although the sexual conduct occurred outside North Carolina, the court held that North Carolina state and federal courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over Sinema.
Ms. Ammel experienced the alleged harm within North Carolina, since her marital home was there and there is no indication she traveled extensively outside the state….
[And] Ms. Ammel testified that she observed nine Signal messages from Ms. Sinema on Mr. Ammel’s phone while he was in North Carolina. Ms. Sinema testified that she did not recall sending any of those messages, except the one dated October 3.
The Court finds Ms. Ammel credible about the existence and context of the messages. Her testimony has been consistent and is supported by corroborating evidence, and she has acknowledged facts that undermine her position in places. In contrast, Ms. Sinema’s testimony on several pivotal points has lacked credibility, with portions of her sworn declaration contradicted by her testimony during the evidentiary hearing. The Court also finds it improbable that her assertion that her relationship with Mr. Ammel was exclusively sexual, with no flirting, and that she would not have sent messages while he was away, could be true.
Contrary to Sinema’s claims, the preserved texts reveal an emotional bond between Mr. Ammel and Ms. Sinema. Those messages, together with Sinema’s involvement with Mr. Ammel’s children and their ongoing connection, make it unlikely that Sinema’s testimony about the nature of their relationship was accurate. The Court also finds it implausible that Mr. Ammel, a married man and simply a security guard in Sinema’s circle, would have shared a kiss with his boss, a United States Senator, without prior flirtation or invitation.
Sinema contends that Ammel cannot prove that seven of the messages were sent while he was physically located in North Carolina. The Court accepts Ammel’s testimony that she found the messages on Mr. Ammel’s phone at her home, but she conceded she did not know the precise times they were sent.
Both parties’ phones were configured to erase messages eight hours after they were opened. Sinema did not offer evidence that Ammel routinely waited a long period to read her messages. Consequently, the Court infers that Ammel typically read Sinema’s messages shortly after they were sent, since she was his supervisor and they were developing an intimate relationship. Because Ammel found the messages in North Carolina within eight hours of their initial reading, the Court reasonably infers they were sent while he was in North Carolina….
Sinema also acknowledged that she knew Mr. Ammel was married and living in North Carolina during the period in question. Moreover, during that period, Mr. Ammel worked as Sinema’s security attendant. The text messages convey a personal and emotional bond that increases the likelihood that Sinema knew where Ammel was. Therefore, the Court finds it reasonable to conclude that Sinema knew he was not with her or her staff and that he was likely at home in North Carolina.
The October 3, 2024, “hand over your heart” message falls into a different category because there is no dispute that Ammel was in North Carolina when it was sent. Nonetheless, Sinema maintains she did not know where Ammel was at the time of sending. She testified that they had sexual relations on the night of October 2, 2024, after which he spent the night at her residence. She further testified that she knew he planned to depart early the next morning to catch a flight, but she did not know he intended to head to North Carolina for his daughter’s birthday.
Yet by that point, Sinema had been involved with Ammel romantically for more than four months, and their relationship had likely extended even longer in personal and emotional terms. She also had connections with Ammel’s children. For example, in July 2024 she attended a concert with one of them and showed them the Capitol. She likewise attended a Taylor Swift concert with the children in mid‑October, just weeks after the disputed text. In light of these facts, the Court finds it unlikely that Ammel would have left Sinema before 6:22 a.m. to catch a flight without informing her that he was returning to North Carolina for his daughter’s birthday.
Thus, North Carolina emerges as the focal point of the alleged tortious conduct. Sinema knew that Ammel was married, resided in North Carolina, and had children there. The evidence further supports the conclusion that she knew Ammel generally returned to North Carolina whenever he was not with her, and that the alleged actions would cause harm to Ammel’s household in North Carolina, where she and his children lived.
Therefore, despite contrary testimony, the evidence indicates that Sinema deliberately availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in North Carolina by sending nine messages to Ammel while he was in North Carolina. Taken together, those messages reflect the formation and continuation of a romantic relationship with Ammel—an intrusion into his marriage not only during travel but also during his time at home in North Carolina….
[And] the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum…. Some of those messages alone constitute acts that contributed to the loss of love and affection between Mr. and Mrs. Ammel. Viewed collectively, however, the messages help to cultivate and advance the intimate relationship between Ammel and Sinema that allegedly produced the loss of affection in the Ammels’ marriage.
North Carolina’s interest in resolving this dispute weighs heavily in favor of exercising personal jurisdiction. In Malecek v. Williams (2017), the North Carolina Court of Appeals explained that the state has an interest in deterring and remedying the harmful effects of acts that undermine marriage vows, inflict personal injury, and erode the institution of marriage. By contrast, Sinema offered no proof that litigating in North Carolina would impose a substantial burden. Although she lives in Arizona, she testified that her work is in Washington, D.C.—a 90‑minute flight or a five‑hour drive from Winston‑Salem, North Carolina—and she is an experienced traveler. If she can reside in Arizona and work in D.C., it seems unlikely that a suit in North Carolina would be unduly burdensome….
Representing the plaintiff were Thomas M. Van Camp, Mary Catherine Coltrane, and Michael James Newman of Van Camp Meacham & Newman, PLLC.
