N.C. Court Has Jurisdiction over Alienation of Affection Claim Brought Against Ex-Arizona-Senator Kyrsten Sinema

From Ammel v. Sinema, decided Friday by Judge David Bragdon (M.D.N.C.):

Ms. Ammel married Matthew Ammel in 2010. From 2014 through November 2024, they resided in Whispering Pines, North Carolina, with their three children.

Mr. Ammel met Ms. Sinema in August 2022, following his retirement from the military. At that time, Ms. Sinema was serving as a United States Senator for the State of Arizona. During her tenure in the Senate, Ms. Sinema maintained residences in both Arizona and Washington, DC. Ms. Sinema left the Senate and is currently a professor at Arizona State University and an attorney with Hogan Lovells Cadwalader in Washington, DC….

Mr. Ammel and Sinema apparently began an affair, which took place in California, New York, and Colorado. Eventually, Ms. Ammel learned of this, she and her husband separated, and she sued Sinema for “alienation of affections,” a tort that North Carolina still recognizes and that is still often litigated in North Carolina courts. (Last fiscal year, for instance, there were 150 alienation of affections filings in N.C. courts; it’s also apparently recognized in Hawaii, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah.)

To establish an alienation of affection claim, a party must show: “(1) there was a marriage with love and affection existing between the husband and wife; (2) that love and affection was alienated; and (3) the malicious acts of the defendant produced the loss of that love and affection.” A malicious act “include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.” However, in cases in which the defendant has engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse, malice is conclusively presumed.

The evidence [as alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint] demonstrates that although the relationship between Mr. and Ms. Ammel was turbulent in 2024, there was still genuine love and affection between them, as reflected in their text messages. In October 2024, Mr. and Ms. Ammel took an anniversary trip that included intimacy and was followed by text messages in which they expressed their love for one another. The evidence also shows that love and affection was alienated by Mr. Ammel’s relationship with Ms. Sinema; and since their relationship included a sexual relationship, malice is conclusively presumed.

And though the sexual conduct took place outside North Carolina, the court concluded that state and federal courts in North Carolina would have personal jurisdiction over Synema:

Ms. Ammel felt the harm in North Carolina, since her marital residence was there and there was no evidence that she traveled substantially outside of North Carolina….

[And] Ms. Ammel testified that she saw 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 October 3rd message.

The Court finds Ms. Ammel credible in describing the existence of and context of the messages. Ms. Ammel’s testimony has been generally consistent and supported by corroborating evidence. In addition, Ms. Ammel has acknowledged facts that hurt her case. In contrast, Ms. Sinema’s testimony on several key matters has not been credible, with portions of her declaration contradicted by her testimony at the evidentiary hearing. The Court also finds Ms. Sinema’s testimony that her relationship with Mr. Ammel involved only sex, that she did not flirt with him, and that she would not have sent messages when he was not with her to be implausible.

Contrary to these claims, the texts that were preserved show an emotional connection between Mr. Ammel and Ms. Sinema. Those messages, coupled with Ms. Sinema’s connection with Mr. Ammel’s children and their continuing relationship, make it unlikely that Ms. Sinema’s testimony about her relationship with Mr. Ammel was true. The Court also finds it implausible that Mr. Ammel, a married man and mere security guard to Ms. Sinema, would have kissed his boss, a United States Senator, with no prior flirting or invitation.

Ms. Sinema argues that Ms. Ammel cannot prove that seven of these messages were sent to Mr. Ammel while he was in North Carolina. The Court accepts Ms. Ammel’s testimony that she found the messages on Mr. Ammel’s phone at her home. However, she acknowledged that she did not know when the messages were sent.

Both Ms. Sinema and Mr. Ammel had their phones set to delete messages eight hours after they were read. Ms. Sinema did not provide any evidence that Mr. Ammel regularly waited a long time to read her messages. Therefore, the Court infers that Mr. Ammel usually read Ms. Sinema’s messages soon after she sent them since she was his boss, and they were beginning an intimate relationship. Because Ms. Ammel saw the messages in North Carolina within eight hours of the time they were first read, the Court finds it reasonable to conclude that the messages were sent while Mr. Ammel was in North Carolina….

Ms. Sinema [also] admitted that she knew Mr. Ammel was married and lived in North Carolina with his wife and children during the relevant period. Moreover, during the relevant period, Mr. Ammel worked as security for Ms. Sinema. The text messages also convey a personal and emotional relationship that makes it more likely that Ms. Sinema would know where Mr. Ammel was. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Sinema knew where Mr. Ammel was at the time the messages were sent. And even if she did not know exactly, she certainly knew he was not with her or her staff and therefore likely to be at home in North Carolina.

The October 3, 2024, “hand over your heart” message is in a different category because there is no dispute that Mr. Ammel was in North Carolina when it was sent. Nonetheless, Ms. Sinema still claims that she did not know where Mr. Ammel was when she sent it. Ms. Sinema testified that she and Mr. Ammel had sexual intercourse on the night of October 2, 2024, after which he spent the night at her house. She further testified that she knew Mr. Ammel planned to leave early the following morning to catch a flight, but she did not know that he was going to North Carolina for his daughter’s birthday.

However, by that time, Ms. Sinema had been in a romantic relationship with Mr. Ammel for more than four months. Their relationship had likely been personal and emotional for even longer. And Ms. Sinema had a relationship with Mr. Ammel’s children. For example, in July 2024, she attended a concert with one of his children and gave them a tour of the Capitol. She also attended a Taylor Swift concert with the children in mid-October, just a few weeks after the text at issue was sent. Against that backdrop, the Court finds it implausible that Mr. Ammel would have left Ms. Sinema before 6:22 a.m. to catch a flight without telling her that he was returning to North Carolina for his daughter’s birthday.

Thus, … North Carolina was the “focal point” of the alleged tortious conduct. Ms. Sinema knew that Mr. Ammel was married, lived in North Carolina, and had children there. The evidence further supports the conclusion that she knew Mr. Ammel generally returned to North Carolina when he was not with her and that the alleged conduct would cause harm to Ms. Ammel in North Carolina, where she and her children lived.

Therefore, despite testimony to the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sinema purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in North Carolina by sending nine messages to Mr. Sinema, a married man, while he was in North Carolina. These messages, considered together, show Ms. Sinema building and furthering a romantic relationship with Mr. Ammel—invading the marriage not just while he was away on trips with her but while he was home with his family in North Carolina….

[And] the claims arise out of or relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum…. Some of those messages, standing alone, constitute acts that contributed to the loss of love and affection between Mr. and Ms. Ammel. Viewed collectively, the messages do more: they develop and further the intimate relationship between Mr. Ammel and Ms. Sinema that allegedly produced the loss of love and affection between Mr. and Ms. Ammel. Because Ms. Sinema sent these messages to Mr. Ammel while he was physically present in North Carolina, the messages bear a direct connection to the conduct underlying Ms. Ammel’s alienation of affection claim…

North Carolina’s interest in adjudicating this dispute [also] weighs strongly in favor of exercising personal jurisdiction. In Malecek v. Williams (2017), the North Carolina Court of Appeals explained that North Carolina has an interest in “seek[ing] to deter and remedy the harmful effects that result from acts that cause people to break their marriage vows, inflict personal injury on others, and damage the institution of marriage.” By contrast, Ms. Sinema has not presented evidence that litigating this matter in North Carolina would impose a significant burden. Although Ms. Sinema resides in Arizona, she testified that she works in Washington, D.C., which is a 90-minute flight or a 5-hour drive from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Furthermore, Ms. Sinema is an experienced traveler. If she can live in Arizona and work in Washington, D.C., it seems unlikely that a lawsuit in North Carolina would impose a burden….

Thomas M. Van Camp, Mary Catherine Coltrane, and Michael James Newman (Van Camp Meacham & Newman, PLLC) represent plaintiff.