In S.E. v. Edelstein, (OH App., March 25, 2024), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit for intentional interference with a contractual relationship brought by an Orthodox Jewish wife (Kimberly) against her father-in-law (Max) who disapproved of her marriage to his son (Elliott). The court held that the suit essentially sought damages for alienation of affections and breach of promise to marry which were barred as causes of action by Ohio Revised Code 2305.29. The court said in part:
In the complaint, it was alleged that Max had intentionally interfered with the ketubah, the supposed "contract" at issue in this case, by engaging in a continuous "campaign to undermine" Kimberly and Eliott's contractual relationship (i.e., their marriage) for nearly 20 years. The complaint alleged that this included Max being "emotionally abusive" towards Kimberly, as well as Max making "negative and derogatory statements" about Kimberly. This, according to the complaint, included Max criticizing Kimberly's "status as a convert to Judaism" and by frequently stating that Kimberly's and Eliott's children "were not Jewish." The complaint also alleged that Max, "with the intent to destroy the contractual relationship between" Kimberly and Eliott, routinely disparaged Kimberly to "persuade" Eliott to "terminate his contractual relationship with [her]."...
[T]he complaint raises amatory claims of a breach of a promise to marry and alienation of affections against Max couched in terms of an intentional interference with a contractual relationship ..., loss of consortium... , loss of parental consortium ..., intentional infliction of emotional distress ...,, and malice..... As stated previously, pursuant to R.C. 2305.29, neither Max, nor any other person, could be held liable in civil damages.... for any breach of a promise to marry or alienation of affection. This holds true despite those claims being pled within the complaint in other, generally more suitable terms....
Just as a rose is a rose by any other name, a non-actionable claim does not become actionable simply by masquerading as one that is....
