Can You Sue for “Stealing” a Spouse?: What the TikTok Influencer Case Means for Illinois and Michigan

Family Law | Divorce | Civil Litigation

A recent case out of North Carolina caught national attention when a TikTok influencer was ordered to pay $1.75 million for her role in breaking up a marriage. The North Carolina jury found influencer, Brenay Kennard, who has 2.9 followers on TikTok,  liable for alienation of affection and criminal conversation. While North Carolina maintains the tort of alienation of affection, the legal treatment of marital infidelity varies significantly across states, particularly between Illinois and Michigan. This blog explores how these two jurisdictions approach infidelity in marriage and divorce proceedings.

No-Fault Divorce Framework

Under no-fault divorce laws, courts enter judgments dissolving marriages based on evidence of breakdown in the marriage relationship rather than fault-based grounds.  The no-fault system requires "evidence … presented in open court that there has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship." While both Illinois and Michigan operate under no-fault divorce systems, evidence of marital misconduct may retain limited relevance in certain contexts.

Illinois:

Illinois is a no-fault divorce state, so infidelity is not considered when dividing property or awarding spousal support. However, if a spouse dissipates marital assets (for example, spends money on an affair), the court can order reimbursement or adjust property division. In Illinois,

conduct similar to that found liable in North Carolina would likely face significant statutory limitations on damages under the Alienation of Affections Act. The Illinois approach reflects a legislative compromise that maintains the cause of action while addressing concerns about potential abuse and excessive liability.

Michigan:

Though Michigan is a no-fault divorce state, courts nay consider misconduct like adultery when determining property division or alimony. Michigan's no-fault system focuses on whether there has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

While Michigan minimizes the role of infidelity in divorce proceedings, the state takes a more nuanced approach when children are involved. Under Michigan's Child Custody Act, courts consider multiple factors when determining the best interests of the child, including the moral fitness of the parties involved. Michigan courts have established clear guidelines for when extramarital affairs become relevant to child custody determinations. Infidelity cannot be used to measure a parent's moral fitness unless that infidelity actually interferes with the parent's ability to parent their child. The key question is not who is the morally superior adult, but rather the parties' relative fitness to provide for their child.

Conclusion

Both Illinois and Michigan have adopted no-fault divorce systems that significantly limit the relevance of infidelity and marital misconduct in divorce proceedings. While such evidence may retain minimal relevance in establishing the breakdown of the marriage relationship, it generally has little impact on financial determinations, where courts focus primarily on the economic needs and abilities of the parties. In Michigan, fault may still be considered as one factor in property division, but courts cannot assign it disproportionate weight. This approach reflects a broader policy judgment that fault-based divorce proceedings are counterproductive and that the focus should be on addressing the practical consequences of marital dissolution rather than assigning blame.

At Gyimah Law, PLC, we represent clients across Michigan and Illinois in complex divorce and family law cases. Whether you’re dealing with marital misconduct, financial disputes, or emotional fallout from an affair, we help you navigate the legal process with clarity and discretion.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.