Does cheating change what you walk away with?
In five states it can cost a spouse alimony outright. In ten others the court is forbidden to consider it at all. Same fact, opposite consequence, and almost nobody finds out which side of the line they are on until it matters. This is the answer for all fifty, from each state’s own code.
Two questions get tangled together and they are not the same question. Whether adultery still ends a marriage on paper is mostly a historical curiosity now — every state has a no-fault route and most people take it. Whether it changes the money is live, consequential, and varies more than almost anything else in American divorce law. This page separates them.
All fifty, side by side
Grouped by what adultery does to spousal support, because that is the question people actually arrive with. Every cell names the section it comes from. Three states do not publish their own code for free; for those we quote the state’s own appellate courts quoting the statute, and the cell says which case.
Showing all fifty states.
| State | Effect on alimony | Adultery a ground? | What the statute says | Property |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Counts toward alimony | Yes — Ala. Code § 30-2-1(a)(2) | Considered — § 30-2-57(f)(3), “the relative fault of the parties for the breakdown of the marriage” | Considered — § 30-2-52 |
| Alaska | Cannot be considered | Yes — AS 25.24.050(2) | Forbidden — “without regard to which of the parties is in fault” (AS 25.24.160(a)(2)) | Forbidden as to fault — AS 25.24.160(a)(4) |
| Arizona | Cannot be consideredtwo regimes | Only in a covenant marriage — A.R.S. § 25-903(1) | Forbidden — “shall be made without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 25-319(C)) | Forbidden — § 25-318(A) |
| Arkansas | Statute is silent | Yes — Ark. Code § 9-12-301 | Not addressed — § 9-12-312 sets no misconduct factor | Not addressed — § 9-12-315 presumes half each |
| California | Cannot be considered | No — no-fault only, Fam. Code § 2310 | Forbidden — except as another statute provides, misconduct evidence is “improper and inadmissible” (§ 2335) | Forbidden — § 2335; equal division under § 2550 |
| Colorado | Cannot be considered | No — no-fault only, C.R.S. § 14-10-106 | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 14-10-114(2)) | Forbidden — § 14-10-113(1) |
| Connecticut | Counts toward alimony | Yes — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(c)(3) | Considered — the court “shall consider … the causes for the … dissolution” (§ 46b-82(a)) | Considered — § 46b-81(c), same language |
| Delaware | Cannot be considered | Indirectly — 13 Del. C. § 1505(b)(2); the decree still rests on breakdown | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 1512(c)) | Forbidden — § 1513(a) |
| Florida | Counts toward alimony | No — no-fault only, Fla. Stat. § 61.052(1) | Considered, by name — “may consider the adultery of either spouse and any resulting economic impact” (§ 61.08(1)(a)) | Not addressed — § 61.075(1); dissipation within 2 years is separate |
| Georgia | Can cost you alimonyonly if it caused the split | Yes — cited as O.C.G.A. § 19-5-3 on the Judicial Council’s own divorce complaint | BARRED — a party “shall not be entitled to alimony” where the separation “was caused by that party’s adultery or desertion” (§ 19-6-1(b)) | Not confirmed |
| Hawaii | Counts toward alimonynot named in the statute | No — no-fault only, HRS § 580-41 | Considered, loosely — “the respective merits of the parties” (§ 580-47(a)); the statute never says adultery | Same sentence governs both — § 580-47(a) |
| Idaho | Counts toward alimony | Yes — Idaho Code § 32-603(1); defined § 32-604 | Considered — “the fault of either party” (§ 32-705(2)(g)) | Not addressed — § 32-712(1) lists seven factors, none fault-based |
| Illinois | Cannot be considered | No — irreconcilable differences only, 750 ILCS 5/401(a) | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (5/504(a)) | Forbidden — the identical words appear again at 5/503(d) |
| Indiana | Statute is silent | No — IC 31-15-2-3 lists four grounds “and no other ground” | Not addressed — IC 31-15-7-1, 31-15-7-2 | Economic conduct only — “disposition or dissipation of their property” (IC 31-15-7-5(4)) |
| Iowa | Statute is silent | No — no-fault only, Iowa Code § 598.17 | Not addressed — § 598.21A lists no fault factor | Not addressed — § 598.21(5) |
| Kansas | Statute is silent | Not named — K.S.A. 23-2701(a) lists incompatibility and failure to perform a material marital duty | Not addressed — K.S.A. 23-2902 | Dissipation of assets is a factor (23-2802(c)(8)); adultery is not |
| Kentucky | Statute is silentproperty and alimony differ | No — irretrievable breakdown only, KRS 403.170 | Not addressed — KRS 403.200(2) omits it | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (KRS 403.190(1)) |
| Louisiana | Can cost you alimonyfinal support only | Yes — La. C.C. art. 103(2) | BARRED — final periodic support goes only to a spouse “who is free from fault” (arts. 111, 112(A)) | Not addressed — R.S. 9:2801 mandates equal net value |
| Maine | Counts toward alimonyeconomic only | Yes — 19-A M.R.S. § 902(1)(A) | Economic misconduct only — “economic misconduct … resulting in the diminution of marital property or income” (§ 951-A(5)(M)) | Economic abuse only — § 953(1)(D) |
| Maryland | Counts toward alimonygrounds repealed, factors survive | No — fault grounds repealed effective 1 October 2023 (Fam. Law § 7-103(a)) | Considered — “the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties” (§ 11-106(b)(6)) | Considered — § 8-205(b)(4), identical wording |
| Massachusetts | Statute is silentproperty and alimony differ | Yes — M.G.L. c. 208, § 1 | Not addressed — § 53(a) omits conduct, though it ends in an open catch-all | Considered — “the conduct of the parties during the marriage” (§ 34) |
| Michigan | Statute is silent | No — no-fault only, MCL 552.6 | Not addressed — MCL 552.23 is open-ended | Not addressed — MCL 552.19 |
| Minnesota | Cannot be considered | No — no-fault only, Minn. Stat. § 518.06 | Forbidden — § 518.552, subd. 2 | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 518.58, subd. 1) |
| Mississippi | Counts toward alimonyfactors are case law, not statute | Yes — § 93-5-1, the second of twelve causes, with collusion and post-knowledge cohabitation written into the ground itself | Considered — “Fault or misconduct” is the tenth of the twelve Armstrong factors. Mississippi has no alimony-factor statute; the list is case law | Not a factor — the eight Ferguson guidelines reach dissipation of assets and not fault |
| Missouri | Counts toward alimony | No — but adultery proves breakdown when it is denied (§ 452.320.2(1)(a)) | Considered — “the conduct of the parties during the marriage” (§ 452.335.2(9)) | Considered — identical phrase at § 452.330.1(4) |
| Montana | Cannot be considered | No — no-fault only, MCA § 40-4-104 | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 40-4-203(2)) | Forbidden — § 40-4-202(1) |
| Nebraska | Statute is silentthe famous rule is not in the code | No — no-fault only, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-361 | Not addressed — § 42-365 is silent; neither the section nor the case notes the Legislature prints beside it contain the familiar “without regard to misconduct” line | Not addressed — § 42-365 |
| Nevada | Statute is silent | No — adultery is not a listed cause, NRS 125.010 | Not addressed — NRS 125.150(1)(a) | Not addressed — equal split unless a “compelling reason” |
| New Hampshire | Counts toward alimonyconditional | Yes — RSA 458:7, II | Considered — “the conduct of either party during the marriage,” including abuse or fault, is a listed reason to adjust term alimony (RSA 458:19-a, IV(g)); fault itself counts only if it caused the breakdown and caused substantial suffering or economic loss | Same condition — RSA 458:16-a, II(l) |
| New Jersey | Counts toward alimony | Yes — N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2 | Considered — the court “may consider also the proofs made in establishing such ground” (2A:34-23(g)); the 14 enumerated factors omit fault | Not confirmed — 2A:34-23.1 was not readable on a state site |
| New Mexico | Statute is silent | Yes — NMSA 1978 § 40-4-1(C) | Not addressed — § 40-4-7(E)’s ten factors contain no fault factor | Not addressed — §§ 40-4-3, 40-4-7(B) |
| New York | Statute is silent | Yes — DRL § 170(4) | Not addressed — § 236B(6)(e)(1) reaches dissipation, not adultery | Not addressed — § 236B(5)(d); factors cover dissipation, transfers and domestic violence |
| North Carolina | Can cost you alimonyruns both ways | For divorce from bed and board only — N.C.G.S. § 50-7(6). Absolute divorce is separation-based | BARRED, and compelled in reverse — “the court shall not award alimony” to a dependent spouse who committed illicit sexual behavior; if the supporting spouse did, it “shall order that alimony be paid” (§ 50-16.3A(a)); both rules reach only behavior during the marriage and before or on the date of separation | Not addressed — § 50-20(c) |
| North Dakota | Counts toward alimony | Yes — N.D.C.C. § 14-05-03(1); defined § 14-05-04 | Considered — “the conduct of the parties during the marriage” (§ 14-05-24.1(3)(d)) | Not addressed — § 14-05-24 lists no factors |
| Ohio | Statute is silent | Yes — O.R.C. § 3105.01(C) | Not addressed — § 3105.18(C)(1) omits misconduct, but ends in a catch-all | Financial misconduct only — § 3105.171(E)(4) |
| Oklahoma | Statute is silent | Yes — 43 O.S. § 101, “Second. Adultery.” | Not addressed — § 121(B) supplies no factor list at all | Not addressed — § 121(B) |
| Oregon | Cannot be consideredstrongest prohibition in the country | No — fault doctrines abolished, ORS 107.036(1) | Forbidden — “the court shall not consider the fault, if any, of either of the parties” (ORS 107.036(3)) | Forbidden — same sentence covers both |
| Pennsylvania | Counts toward alimonyproperty and alimony differ | Yes — 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a)(2) | Considered — § 3701(b)(14); post-separation conduct excluded except abuse | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 3502(a)) |
| Rhode Island | Counts toward alimony | Yes — R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-2(2) | Considered — “the conduct of the parties during the marriage” (§ 15-5-16(b)(1)(ii)) | Considered — § 15-5-16.1(a)(2) |
| South Carolina | Can cost you alimonytime-limited | Yes — S.C. Code § 20-3-10(1) | BARRED — “No alimony may be awarded a spouse who commits adultery before the earliest of these two events” (§ 20-3-130(A)) | Considered — § 20-3-620(B)(2) |
| South Dakota | Statute is silentproperty and alimony differ | Yes — SDCL 25-4-2(1); defined 25-4-3 | Not addressed — 25-4-41; and the fault-exclusion statute pointedly omits alimony | Forbidden, with one exception — “Fault shall not be taken into account with regard to the awarding of property,” “except as it may be relevant to the acquisition of property during the marriage” (25-4-45.1) |
| Tennessee | Counts toward alimonysupport only, never property | Yes — § 36-4-101(3) | Considered — “the relative fault of the parties, in cases where the court, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to do so” (§ 36-5-121(i)(11)) | Excluded by statute — marital property is divided “without regard to marital fault” (§ 36-4-121(a)(1)) |
| Texas | Counts toward alimony | Yes — Tex. Fam. Code § 6.003 | Considered — “marital misconduct, including adultery and cruel treatment, by either spouse during the marriage” (§ 8.052(10)) | Not addressed — § 7.001 requires a “just and right” division |
| Utah | Counts toward alimonyrenumbered in 2024 | Yes — Utah Code § 81-4-405(1)(b) | Considered — “the court may consider the fault of the parties” (§ 81-4-502(2)(a)); fault is defined to include sexual relations outside the marriage (§ 81-4-501(3)(a)) | Not addressed — § 81-4-406(4)(c) |
| Vermont | Statute is silent | Yes — 15 V.S.A. § 551(1) | Not addressed — § 752(b)’s nine factors are economic and demographic | Considered, loosely — “the respective merits of the parties” (§ 751(b)(12)); the statute never says adultery |
| Virginia | Can cost you alimonyescape hatch exists | Yes — Va. Code § 20-91(A)(1) | BARRED — “no permanent maintenance and support shall be awarded from a spouse if there exists in such spouse’s favor a ground of divorce” (§ 20-107.1(B)) | Considered — § 20-107.3(E)(5) |
| Washington | Cannot be considered | No — no-fault only, RCW 26.09.030 | Forbidden — “without regard to misconduct” (RCW 26.09.090(1)) | Forbidden — RCW 26.09.080 |
| West Virginia | Counts toward alimonyhighest proof standard in the country | Yes — W. Va. Code § 48-5-204 | Considered, and the court must — “the court shall consider and compare the fault or misconduct of either or both of the parties” (§ 48-8-104) | Forbidden except for economic consequences — § 48-7-103 |
| Wisconsin | Statute is silentproperty and alimony differ | No — no-fault only, Wis. Stat. § 767.315 | Not addressed — § 767.56 omits it, and unlike the property statute contains no prohibition | Forbidden — “without regard to marital misconduct” (§ 767.61(3)) |
| Wyoming | Statute is silent | No — irreconcilable differences (Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-104) or incurable insanity (§ 20-2-105); adultery is not a ground | Not addressed — § 20-2-114(a) keys only to “the other’s ability to pay” | Considered, loosely — “the respective merits of the parties” (§ 20-2-114(a)) |
The five states where it costs you
All five put it in the statute rather than leaving it to a judge, and all five carry a limit that summaries tend to drop. Georgia’s limit is the strictest of the five and the most often left out: the adultery must have caused the separation.
Georgia Barred, if it caused the split
§ 19-6-1(b) is one sentence: a party “shall not be entitled to alimony if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the separation between the parties was caused by that party’s adultery or desertion.” Three things in it get dropped in summaries. Causation is an element — adultery after the parties had already separated does not meet the sentence on its face. Desertion sits in the same clause, so the subsection is not really an adultery rule. And the standard is preponderance, the ordinary civil standard, not the clear-and-convincing evidence Virginia requires to go the other way. Subsection (c) then makes alimony discretionary “in all other cases.”
North Carolina Both directions, both mandatory
The only state in the country that runs the rule both ways as a command. If the dependent spouse committed what the statute calls illicit sexual behavior, § 50-16.3A(a) says the court “shall not award alimony.” If the supporting spouse did, the same subsection says the court “shall order that alimony be paid.” Not may — shall, twice. Both commands reach only behavior “during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation.” Two things soften it: behavior the other spouse condoned “shall not be considered by the court,” and if both of them did it, the decision returns to the judge’s discretion.
South Carolina Flat bar, with a deadline
The sentence reads: “No alimony may be awarded a spouse who commits adultery before the earliest of these two events…” What most summaries leave out is that the bar has a cut-off. It reaches adultery committed before the earlier of the formal signing of a written property or marital settlement agreement, or a permanent order of separate maintenance and support or approving such an agreement — so conduct after that point does not trigger it. Misconduct is separately a factor in how much (§ 20-3-130(C)(10)) and in the property split (§ 20-3-620(B)(2)).
Virginia Barred, unless it would be unjust
§ 20-107.1(B) bars permanent maintenance and support where the other spouse has a ground of divorce under § 20-91(A)(1). But Virginia builds in an escape hatch that the other four do not: the court may award anyway if it finds, on clear and convincing evidence, that denying support would be a “manifest injustice,” weighing the degrees of fault against the parties’ economic circumstances. Note the two limits — permanent support only, and keyed to subdivision A(1) rather than to fault generally.
Louisiana Free from fault, or no support
Louisiana does not say adultery. It says final periodic support may go only to a party “who is in need of support and who is free from fault prior to the filing.” The effect is the same and the reach is wider. Two limits worth knowing: interim support carries no freedom-from-fault requirement at all, and art. 112(C) creates a presumption of entitlement for a spouse divorced under art. 103(2) — so the fault rule cuts in both directions here too.
The ten that will not hear it
Ten states forbid the court from weighing marital misconduct in support, most of them in the same five words: “without regard to marital misconduct.” Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Illinois says it twice, in identical language — once for maintenance at 750 ILCS 5/504(a) and again for property at 5/503(d).
Oregon is the furthest of the ten. ORS 107.036 does three separate things: it abolishes fault doctrines, it bars misconduct evidence from being received except where child custody is at issue or where the court finds it necessary to prove irreconcilable differences, and it separately forbids the court to consider fault in either support or property. California gets to the same place by a different route — Fam. Code § 2335 makes evidence of specific acts of misconduct “improper and inadmissible,” so, unless another statute provides otherwise, the question does not reach the factors.
Forgiving it can end the case
This is the question that gets asked most often and answered least: we tried again, and it did not work — does that change anything? In several states it changes a great deal, because forgiveness has a legal name. It is called condonation, and where it applies it does not merely weaken the claim. It ends it.
Pennsylvania A perpetual bar
23 Pa.C.S. § 3307(b) gives four defenses to an adultery action and calls them “a good defense and a perpetual bar against the action.” Perpetual is the operative word. Note that § 3307(a) abolishes condonation only for mutual consent and one-year separation — it survives for the fault grounds.
New York Forgiveness can be proved by conduct
DRL § 171 bars a divorce though adultery is proved where the offense “has been forgiven by the plaintiff” — and forgiveness “may be proven, either affirmatively, or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with knowledge of the fact.” You do not have to say you forgave it.
North Carolina Condoned conduct is invisible
§ 50-16.3A(a) is blunt: “Any act of illicit sexual behavior by either party that has been condoned by the other party shall not be considered by the court.” In a state where adultery otherwise bars alimony outright, that sentence is the whole case.
Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota The divorce itself is denied
These three go further than excluding the evidence. Idaho § 32-611, N.D.C.C. §§ 14-05-10(1) and 14-05-13, and SDCL 25-4-19 each provide that a divorce must be denied where the ground has been condoned. All three also list lapse of time; Idaho adds collusion and recrimination, and South Dakota adds connivance and collusion.
None of this is a reason to stay or a reason to go. It is a reason to know which state you are in before you decide, because in some of them the decision has already been made for you by something that happened months ago. If you are still deciding what to do, the questions at two in the morning sorts them into the ones with a legal answer and the ones that need a person. Our fifty-state page on condonation sets out what forgiving an affair does in each state — which section, what counts as forgiving, and whether there is a clock on it. Reconciliation covers the rest of the mechanics, including what a court treats as resuming the marriage.
Five things that get people wrong
Maryland repealed the ground and kept the consequence
Fault grounds were removed from Maryland law effective 1 October 2023. Adultery is no longer a ground for divorce there. But the misconduct factor survived the repeal word for word, in both money statutes: “the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties” is still a factor in alimony (Fam. Law § 11-106(b)(6)) and in property (§ 8-205(b)(4)). Any guide written before 2023 gets Maryland wrong in both directions at once.
North Carolina’s adultery ground does not end the marriage
Adultery is a ground for divorce from bed and board — a court-ordered separation, not a dissolution. An absolute divorce in North Carolina runs only on one year’s separation or incurable insanity, and § 50-6 says in terms that a divorce “shall not be barred … by any provision of G.S. 50-7.” So the answer to “is adultery a ground in North Carolina” is yes and no, and which one you need depends on what you are asking the court for.
Nebraska’s best-known rule is not in the statute
Nebraska is widely described as forbidding courts to consider marital misconduct. The phrase “without regard to marital misconduct” does not appear in § 42-365, and it does not appear in the case notes the Legislature prints beside it either; those notes say alimony is not meant as a punishment. The statute is silent. This is the clearest example on this page of a popular summary drifting from the text it claims to summarize, and it is why we mark silence as silence rather than reading a prohibition into it.
“Conduct” usually means money, not sex
Several states have a conduct factor that looks like it reaches adultery and does not. Indiana’s is expressly about “the disposition or dissipation of their property.” Maine’s says “economic misconduct” and “economic abuse.” Ohio’s reaches financial misconduct. New York’s factors cover wasteful dissipation and transfers made in contemplation of divorce. None of them mentions infidelity. A table that codes these as fault states is wrong.
Missouri does not offer adultery as a ground — it offers it as proof
The only ground in Missouri is irretrievable breakdown. Adultery enters procedurally: if the respondent denies under oath that the marriage is broken, § 452.320.2(1)(a) lets the petitioner establish breakdown by proving adultery and that they find it intolerable to live with the respondent. Both halves are required, and the second is about the petitioner rather than the respondent.
What we could not confirm
Nothing, now — and the way the last three cells got filled is worth more than the cells. On 30 September, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee were blank here for the same stated reason: each routes its official code to a commercial publisher, which is outside what this site will cite, and each state’s own hosts either serve a script shell or refuse automated reading. We spent two days at those front doors and got nothing.
The way in was not the code. A state’s appellate courts publish for free, and they quote the statutes they apply. So:
- Georgia. Coker v. Coker, No. S09F1159 (19 October 2009) sets out § 19-6-1 in full in a footnote — including subsection (b), which is the whole answer.
- Tennessee. The Court of Appeals set out § 36-5-121(i) in full in Mimms v. Mimms, No. M2006-00711-COA-R3-CV (30 January 2007) and again in Blount v. Blount, No. W2022-01722-COA-R3-CV (5 November 2024); factor (11) is relative fault. Dunn v. Dunn, No. E2014-00706-COA-R3-CV (22 December 2014) quotes § 36-4-121(a)(1), which divides property “without regard to marital fault.” Berg v. Berg, No. M2013-00211-COA-R3-CV (25 June 2014) states the adultery ground as § 36-4-101(3).
- Mississippi. There is no alimony-factor statute to read. The twelve factors come from Armstrong v. Armstrong, No. 92-CA-0130 (13 May 1993), and the eight property guidelines from Ferguson v. Ferguson, No. 92-CA-00058 (7 July 1994). We had been looking for a statute that does not exist.
Two honest limits. Mississippi’s cells rest on case law, so a later decision can move them in a way a statute could not — the cell says so rather than looking like the others. And we have not found an opinion quoting Tennessee’s adultery ground word for word; Berg gives us the subsection number, which is what the table asserts.
We are recording the method because it generalizes, and because it says something about the two days we wasted: when a state hides its code, read its courts.
The Cusp is not a law firm and does not provide legal, financial or clinical advice. This page records what statutes say and the date we read them; it makes no claim about what any court will do in a particular case. Adultery and money is an area where the written rule and the practice can differ, and where case law does work the statute does not show. If the answer matters to a filing, take the citation to someone licensed in your state.