N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.20

The (state number) issue reads:

“Did the defendant 1 maliciously and wrongfully cause alienation of a

genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse?”

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that the

plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, three things: 2

First, that the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse were married and that

a genuine marital relationship existed between them.

A genuine marital relationship is one where some degree of love and

affection exists between the spouses. Love and affection may be

demonstrated by [society] [assistance] [companionship] [comfort] [sexual

relationship] [favorable mental attitude] between the spouses. 3 The marital

relationship need not be a perfect one nor one free of discord, but must be

characterized by some degree of love and affection.

Second, that the genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and

the plaintiff’s spouse was alienated. Alienation means the destruction or

diminution of the love and affection of one person for another. 4 The plaintiff

must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the love and affection

of the plaintiff’s spouse for plaintiff was diminished or destroyed. 5

And third, that the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendant were

the proximate cause of the alienation of the genuine marital relationship

between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse. 6

Conduct is malicious when it is intended to, or is recklessly indifferent

to the likelihood that it will, destroy or diminish a genuine marital

relationship. 7 Malice may be shown by evidence that the defendant knew of

the marriage between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse and acted

intentionally in a way that would probably affect the marriage. 8 [A defendant

engaging in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse is malicious. 9]

Conduct is wrongful when it amounts to an unjustified or unexcused

invasion of a genuine marital relationship. [The consent of the plaintiff’s

spouse to the conduct of the defendant is no justification or excuse.] 10 [A

parent’s advice to [his] [her] child concerning the child’s marital relationship

is not, without more, wrongful conduct. To be wrongful, such advice must be

given in bad faith or for an improper motive.] 11

[You must find that at least one of the defendant’s malicious and

wrongful acts took place in the State of North Carolina. 12]

A proximate cause is a cause that in a natural and continuous sequence

produces alienation of a genuine marital relationship and is a cause that a

reasonable and prudent person in the same or similar circumstances could

have foreseen would probably produce such alienation.

There may be more than one proximate cause of the alienation of a

genuine marital relationship. The plaintiff is not required to prove that the

defendant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the alienation of the

genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse [or

that the defendant’s conduct resulted in [adultery] [a separation] [divorce]].

Rather, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence

that, even though there may have been other contributing causes, the

defendant’s conduct was the controlling or effective proximate cause of the

alienation of the genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and the

plaintiff’s spouse. 13

[The malicious and wrongful conduct of the defendant must consist of

[an act] [acts] occurring prior to the physical separation of the plaintiff and

the plaintiff’s spouse with the intent on the part of either the plaintiff or the

plaintiff’s spouse that the physical separation remain permanent. 14

This means that a determination that the malicious and wrongful

conduct of the defendant was the controlling or effective proximate cause of

the alienation of the genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and the

plaintiff’s spouse may not be based upon any act[s] of the defendant which

occurred after the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse physically separated with

the intent on the part of either the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s spouse that the

physical separation remain permanent.]

[Evidence of conduct of the defendant occurring after the plaintiff and

the plaintiff’s spouse physically separated with the intent on the part of either

the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s spouse that the physical separation remain

permanent may only be considered for the purpose of corroborating or

supporting any evidence of malicious and wrongful conduct on the part of the

defendant occurring before the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse physically

separated. 15]

Finally, as to this issue on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof, if

you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff and the

plaintiff’s spouse were married and that a genuine marital relationship existed

between them, that this genuine marital relationship was alienated, and that

the effective or controlling proximate cause of the alienation of that genuine

marital relationship was malicious and wrongful conduct on the part of the

defendant [which occurred prior to the physical separation of the plaintiff and

the plaintiff’s spouse with the intent on the part of either the plaintiff or the

plaintiff’s spouse that the physical separation remain permanent], then it

would be your duty to answer this issue “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue “No” in favor of the defendant.