Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From Ammel v. Sinema, decided Friday by Judge David Bragdon (M.D.N.C.):
Ms. Ammel married Matthew Ammel in 2010.
asserted
Ammel → decide → 2010
From 2014 through November 2024, they resided in Whispering Pines, North Carolina, with their three children.
asserted
they → reside → children
Mr. Ammel met Ms. Sinema in August 2022, following his retirement from the military.
asserted
Ammel → meet → military
At that time, Ms. Sinema was serving as a United States Senator for the State of Arizona.
asserted
Sinema → serve → Arizona
During her tenure in the Senate, Ms. Sinema maintained residences in both Arizona and Washington, DC.
asserted
Sinema → maintain → Arizona
Ms. Sinema left the Senate and is currently a professor at Arizona State University and an attorney with Hogan Lovells Cadwalader in Washington, DC….
asserted
Sinema → leave → DC
Mr. Ammel and Sinema apparently began an affair, which took place in California, New York, and Colorado.
asserted
which → begin → California
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.
asserted
that → learn → 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.
asserted
it → be → Hawaii
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."
uncertain
acts → establish → love
A malicious act "include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.
asserted
that → include[ → relationship
However, in cases in which the defendant has engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff's spouse, malice is conclusively presumed.
asserted
malice → engage → spouse
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.
asserted
relationship → allege → 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.
asserted
they → take → one
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.
asserted
malice → show → relationship
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:
asserted
courts → take → 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.
asserted
he → feel → Carolina
Ms. Sinema testified that she did not recall sending any of those messages, except the October 3rd message.
asserted
she → testify → message
The Court finds Ms. Ammel credible in describing the existence of and context of the messages.
asserted
Ammel → find → messages
Ms. Ammel's testimony has been generally consistent and supported by corroborating evidence.
asserted
testimony → support → evidence
In addition, Ms. Ammel has acknowledged facts that hurt her case.
asserted
that → acknowledge → 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.
asserted
portions → contradict → 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.
asserted
he → find → her
Contrary to these claims, the texts that were preserved show an emotional connection between Mr. Ammel and Ms. Sinema.
uncertain
that → preserve → Ammel
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.
asserted
testimony → couple → Ammel
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.
asserted
Ammel → find → flirting
Ms. Sinema argues that Ms. Ammel cannot prove that seven of these messages were sent to Mr. Ammel while he was in North Carolina.
asserted
he → argue → Carolina
The Court accepts Ms. Ammel's testimony that she found the messages on Mr. Ammel's phone at her home.
asserted
she → accept → home
However, she acknowledged that she did not know when the messages were sent.
asserted
messages → acknowledge → ?
Both Ms. Sinema and Mr. Ammel had their phones set to delete messages eight hours after they were read.
asserted
they → have → messages
Ms. Sinema did not provide any evidence that Mr. Ammel regularly waited a long time to read her messages.
asserted
Ammel → provide → 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.
asserted
they → infer → 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….
asserted
Ammel → see → 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.
asserted
Ammel → admit → period
Moreover, during the relevant period, Mr. Ammel worked as security for Ms. Sinema.
asserted
Ammel → work → 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.
asserted
Ammel → convey → relationship
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Sinema knew where Mr. Ammel was at the time the messages were sent.
asserted
messages → conclude → time
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.
asserted
he → know → 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.
asserted
it → be → Carolina
Nonetheless, Ms. Sinema still claims that she did not know where Mr. Ammel was when she sent it.
uncertain
she → claim → it
…and 21 more, not listed.
