Homewrecker Law Rare but Real: Josh Kolsrud Breaks Down the Lawsuit Against Kyrsten Sinema

Why the “Homewrecker” Law Still Exists

Defense attorney Josh Kolsrud explained that the lawsuit against former U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema is based on North Carolina’s alienation of affection, or “homewrecker,” law—an unusual statute that most states abolished long ago. He noted that these laws trace back to English common law, when marriage was viewed as more than a personal relationship and was tied to social standing and property rights. While largely outdated elsewhere, Kolsrud emphasized that the law remains valid and enforceable in North Carolina.

High-Profile Defendant, Common Legal Claim

Kolsrud pointed out that although the case is drawing national attention because of Sinema’s public profile, this type of lawsuit is not uncommon in North Carolina. He explained that spouses frequently use the statute to seek damages from a third party they believe played a role in the breakdown of their marriage. In his view, the prominence of the defendant does not make the claim unusual or legally weaker under state law.

Damages, Federal Court, and Silence So Far

Addressing the monetary claims, Kolsrud explained that the case was transferred from state court to federal court because it met the minimum financial threshold, beginning at $25,000 and now alleged to reach as high as $75,000. He noted that damages in these cases can grow significantly depending on the facts and evidence developed. Kolsrud added that he is not surprised Sinema has not publicly responded yet, explaining that defendants typically wait to file a formal legal response before launching any public relations effort.

Key Takeaway Points from Josh Kolsrud

• North Carolina is one of the few states that still enforces “homewrecker” laws.

• The statute originates from English common law views of marriage and social status.

• These lawsuits are relatively common in North Carolina, even if they seem shocking elsewhere.

• Damage claims can increase substantially as evidence is presented.

• A public response is unlikely until the defendant formally answers the lawsuit.