A social media influencer with millions of followers has been hit with a staggering £1.33 million legal bill after a jury found she played a role in destroying a marriage through an affair with a married man.
The Landmark Verdict
Brenay Kennard, who boasts a substantial online following, was found liable for "criminal conversation" and "alienation of affection" under North Carolina's unusual laws that allow spouses to sue third parties they believe caused the breakdown of their marriage. The case centred on Kennard's relationship with Tim Montague, who was married to Akira Montague at the time.
The substantial financial penalty represents one of the larger awards granted under these historic legal provisions, sending a clear message about the potential consequences of extramarital affairs in the state.
North Carolina's Unique Laws
North Carolina remains one of the few American states that still recognises "alienation of affection" as a valid legal claim. This centuries-old law essentially permits a jilted spouse to seek compensation from anyone they believe interfered with their marriage, provided the relationship was happy before the interference occurred.
Similarly, "criminal conversation" laws allow spouses to sue for adultery itself, treating it as a civil offence rather than just grounds for divorce. These legal avenues have seen something of a resurgence in recent years as spouses seek accountability beyond the divorce courts.
Closure for the Wronged Spouse
Following the verdict, Akira Montague expressed that the decision had brought her a sense of closure after the painful breakdown of her marriage. The case highlights how these unusual laws provide an additional legal recourse for those who feel their marriages have been deliberately sabotaged by third parties.
The £1.33 million award serves as a stark warning that in North Carolina, breaking up a marriage can have severe financial consequences, potentially breaking the bank for those found liable under these provisions.
As social media influencers continue to wield significant cultural influence, this case raises questions about personal responsibility and the real-world consequences of relationships conducted in the public eye.
