Wife sues mistress & wins

[Lovelybird]

Did you read the news?

 

The wife sued mistress, and got $9 million from the mistress. Maybe more wives will do this in the future, and their rights will be protected by law?

 

 

http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Wife-sues-mistress-and-wins.aspx?cp-searchtext=Wife%20sues%20mistress%20and%20wins

[Lovelybird]

I think this is a good law, to teach people that actually their choices can have consequences, good or bad according to what they choose.

 

If hurting people make bad choices because of their hurtful past, that is understandable, but not condonable, and doesn't mean one should continue to make bad choices

 

I heard somewhere a person said this:

 

If one trys to avoid pain in life (look at self and work on own weaknesses), then he will find himself in a situation filled with much more pain.

 

This has so much truth in it.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Lovelybird

[Lizzie60]

There are millions of cheaters.. and there is an extremely slight chance for this to happen...

 

The judge must have been 'burnt' before..

[Lizzie60]

I should add that this is the most ridiculous thing.. to sue someone for that.. no one owns another human being..

 

Unless the OW had a gun on HIS head.. I think he's the one she should blame.. not the OW..

[always_searching]

Unless the OW had a gun on HIS head.. I think he's the one she should blame.. not the OW..

 

I totally agree. I was flabbergasted when I read about this. $9 mil. That's insane. I mean, seriously: I.N.S.A.N.E.

 

How in the heck did the judge come to that decision? It takes two to tango--the husband even admitted to having numerous affairs with other women! Why is the OW always the one to be blamed for a philandering husband?

 

[Lovelybird]

Yes, the husband definitely has a part in it. But if the OW is strong enough, she won't participate it at the first place. I think the wife has a right to sue both of them, but here she chooses to sue the mistress only. The OW is an intruder, not her husband.

[dazzle22]

Of course she will never see that money, but for her I think it has to do with dishing back some of the humiliation and pain she suffered. How much is a destroyed life worth..?

 

I have a high powered career, but put next to my husband, it means next to nothing to me. My husband is what means everything to me. If some woman managed to steal him from me, a lawsuit would definitely be the least of the things she would need to fear from me, because at that point, my life would be over and I would have nothing to lose. She would live to regret the day she first laid eyes on my man...

[always_searching]

Yes, the husband definitely has a part in it. But if the OW is strong enough, she won't participate it at the first place. I think the wife has a right to sue both of them, but here she chooses to sue the mistress only. The OW is an intruder, not her husband.

 

Unless the OW actively pursues the married man, she shouldn't be the one at fault. Even if she actively pursues, as long as she isn't forcing him into anything, they both are at fault. The OW may be the "intruder" in a sense, but you can't really "intrude" if someone is inviting you in.

 

The husband is the one who took the vows--as such, he's the one who should answer to the wife, not the OW. Should the OW have respected those vows that the MM proclaimed in front of his wife, friends, family, and God: yes. However, again, she isn't the one breaking the vow: he is.

 

The "Alienation of Affection" law only applies to the OW, as far as I know. So, unless I'm mistaken: no, the wife couldn't have sued her husband under this law, but only the OW.

 

Absolutely bogus. Haha, if there's going to be a law for an "Alienation of Affection," they should make a law where married men can sue their wives for not giving them enough attention, forcing them to seek affection elsewhere. Or, maybe the OW could counter-sue for the MM having come to her begging for the affection that the wife alienated from the husband in the first place.

 

America is the only country I know of that is entirely lawsuit happy: kids suing parents; a woman suing McDonalds for spilling a cup of hot coffee on herself; a married woman suing her husband's affair partner. It seems as though there's a potential lawsuit for anything and everything!

 

 

Edited March 27, 2010 by always_searching

[Samantha0905]

I should add that this is the most ridiculous thing.. to sue someone for that.. no one owns another human being..

 

Unless the OW had a gun on HIS head.. I think he's the one she should blame.. not the OW..

 

I totally agree. I was flabbergasted when I read about this. $9 mil. That's insane. I mean, seriously: I.N.S.A.N.E.

 

How in the heck did the judge come to that decision? It takes two to tango--the husband even admitted to having numerous affairs with other women! Why is the OW always the one to be blamed for a philandering husband?

 

 

 

Agreed. Ridiculous. We're a lawsuit happy society.

[Lovelybird]

Even the husband "begged" the OW for attention, nobody puts a gun on the OW head either. She has the choice to leave or stay.

 

Why didn't the wife sue her husband? maybe she considered the good part of him? consider he is her children's father anyway. But who is OW? A woman who chosed to hurt her and her family? Who did indecent things to her? I don't blame the wife for doing so.

 

Do you think that a wife will distant herself willingly from her husband when her husband loves her? Don't you think it is a dance between TWO persons? I am sure somewhere the husband or wife did some hurtful things to each other, and they didn't resolve that. If a wife doesn't want to engaging in sex, there are some reasons to it, and it cannot simply be only her problem. Her husband probably has major part in her distant attitude. But no matter what, OW choose to enter such a picture is not wise at all.

[Clep]

Unless the OW actively pursues the married man, she shouldn't be the one at fault. Even if she actively pursues, as long as she isn't forcing him into anything, they both are at fault. The OW may be the "intruder" in a sense, but you can't really "intrude" if someone is inviting you in.

 

The husband is the one who took the vows--as such, he's the one who should answer to the wife, not the OW. Should the OW have respected those vows that the MM proclaimed in front of his wife, friends, family, and God: yes. However, again, she isn't the one breaking the vow: he is.

 

 

 

I somewhat agree with this. If the OW doesn't know the guy she is seeing is married that is one thing. If she does they are both at fault. Their marriage involves two people and I am gathering to his wife she is very much an intruder.

 

In my opinion any woman or man that get's involved with an attached partner and partakes in cheating is pathetic. Both the cheater and willing OW or OM are both the ultimate in selfish and deceptive.

 

It was extreme the amount of money that was awarded, the fact that the husband and the OW didn't have to split the judgement and both own up to their own part is sad though. Consequences allow people to be accountable for their actions. I hope this happens more often to both the cheater and the willing participant.

 

Maybe if their lack of morals, conscience or integrity doesn't guide them the law will.

[Lovelybird]

Agreed. Ridiculous. We're a lawsuit happy society.

some lawsuits maybe ridiculous, but I see this reasonable. It reenforces the responsibilities of each person, a good thing I think.

 

I like a saying "a free society is a society with full of persons who respect other's freedom", if OW doesn't respect the wife's freedom by sleeping with the wife's husband, she should receive consequences for that. And a society encourages this, is walking toward a good direction I think

Edited March 27, 2010 by Lovelybird

[always_searching]

some lawsuits maybe ridiculous, but I see this reasonable. It reenforces the responsibilities of each person, a good thing I think

 

How does this lawsuit reinforce the responsibility of the husband--the only one who had a real responsibility to his wife?

 

 

Yeah, he'll think twice before cheating...oh, wait a minute! He can sleep with whomever he wants and, if/when he gets caught: the other women get to pay the price for his philandering.

 

Brilliant. Another win for the men of our society.

[Lovelybird]

If one doesn't want men win the dirty part, then one shouldn't engage an affair at the first place. Women aren't victims. They have choices. If a woman wants commitment from a man, then don't sleep with them when barely know them! If a woman cannot control herself, then it is hardly convincing to blame men for men's irresponsibility. Women have choice to improve their own lives, improve their own emotional health, and improve their love lives. OW is the one who gives up their own responsibility and choose to destroy other women's lives. Some women may say "I cannot help", really?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Lovelybird

[tami-chan]

Ridiculous. If I am not mistaken, this is on appeal and I believe this judgment will be overturned. The husband had a history of affairs and there were other facts that apparently were not considered.

[Clep]

How does this lawsuit reinforce the responsibility of the husband--the only one who had a real responsibility to his wife?

 

 

Yeah, he'll think twice before cheating...oh, wait a minute! He can sleep with whomever he wants and, if/when he gets caught: the other women get to pay the price for his philandering.

 

Brilliant. Another win for the men of our society.

 

This judgement was about the OW not the husband. I believe it should have been about both and agree with the fact that he had the real responsibility to his wife.

 

The OW had a responsibility to herself and she didn't pay the price for his philandering....she paid the price for hers!!!! She can sleep with whoever she wants too, and in sleeping with a married man she put herself in a poor position that she paid the price for.

 

I notice that I have not heard much in this thread about the responsibility to society as a whole, which she didn't get either.

 

This isn't about the men of our society...it is about cheaters regardless of what sex they happen to be.

[always_searching]

If one doesn't want men win the dirty part, then one shouldn't engage an affair at the first place. Women aren't victims. They have choices. If a woman wants commitment from a man, then don't sleep with them when barely know them! They have choice to improve their own lives, improve their own emotional health, and improve their love lives. OW is the one who gives up their own responsibility and choose to destroy other women's lives. Some women may say "I cannot help", really?

 

I'm not sure I entirely understand your post--I feel as though it's emotionally charged. I assume you've gone through something similar with your husband/significant other?

 

Okay, so I agree that the OW are not usually victims--I qualify with "usually", because there are situations where MM lie and say they are not married. Anyway, OW who get involved with MM knowing they are married are certainly equally at fault.

 

What I want to know from you is why you obviously feel it is okay for the married man--the one who took the vows, and broke those vows by lying to and cheating on his wife--to get off scot-free while the woman who he slept with--the woman who he probably told a bunch of b.s. to about how much he loved her, couldn't stand his wife, etc.--should take all the blame?

 

Why is the MM innocent in your eyes--so much so that he need not be held accountable for his actions?

[Lovelybird]

I'm not sure I entirely understand your post--I feel as though it's emotionally charged. I assume you've gone through something similar with your husband/significant other?

 

Okay, so I agree that the OW are not usually victims--I qualify with "usually", because there are situations where MM lie and say they are not married. Anyway, OW who get involved with MM knowing they are married are certainly equally at fault.

 

What I want to know from you is why you obviously feel it is okay for the married man--the one who took the vows, and broke those vows by lying to and cheating on his wife--to get off scot-free while the woman who he slept with--the woman who he probably told a bunch of b.s. to about how much he loved her, couldn't stand his wife, etc.--should take all the blame?

 

Why is the MM innocent in your eyes--so much so that he need not be held accountable for his actions?

I didn't go through the thing, but I did have a man who cheated, and we only knew each other for a very short time, no major harm.

 

I don't feel okay for man to cheat ! I never believe a married man complain about his wife and how poor he is. I don't buy that. The moment he trys to "date" me, the moment he losses his status in my eyes. I am not that easily cheated

 

A cheater is NOT innocent. I am just saying THIS wife chooses not to sue him

[always_searching]

This judgement was about the OW not the husband. I believe it should have been about both and agree with the fact that he had the real responsibility to his wife.

 

I know the judgment was about the other woman. What I don't understand is how the OP can claim that this lawsuit was good because it held both parties responsible for their actions, when it was the OW who was singled-out, while the only one who had any real responsibility to the wife got off scot-free.

 

The OW had a responsibility to herself and she didn't pay the price for his philandering....she paid the price for hers!!!! She can sleep with whoever she wants too, and in sleeping with a married man she put herself in a poor position that she paid the price for.

 

Right, but the lawsuit is based on a law called "Alienation of Affection." The idea isn't that she slept with a married man, but that she was the cause of his "alienation of affection" toward his wife. Like the OW can be solely to blame for causing the man to lose affection toward his wife, especially a man who admitted to having multiple affairs.

 

This isn't about the men of our society...it is about cheaters regardless of what sex they happen to be.

 

Well, seeing as how it's usually men who cheat: statistically, this kind of law is in their favor.

 

Regardless, the day a married man whose wife cheats wins a lawsuit against the other man under the "alienation of affection" law is the day that pigs fly.

[always_searching]

I notice that I have not heard much in this thread about the responsibility to society as a whole, which she didn't get either.

 

If you mean that as a society we have a responsibility to one another--to help each other uphold certain values, etc.: I agree. The OW should have told the MM to go home to his wife. Still, it's easier said than done. We are emotional beings, and we can't help who we feel attracted to. Ultimately, yes, we are rational beings (as well as emotional beings) who have a choice: do the morally right thing that complies with reason, or act upon our emotions.

 

In a utopia, I would agree that we all should have a responsibility to help other members of society out by encouraging various moral values and discouraging immoral actions--in a utopia, I also think that we should be held accountable if we fail to do so. However, in America, I just don't see this kind of "one individual taking the responsibility for the actions of themselves as well as other individual members of society whose actions he/she may have influenced" system working.

[Clep]

I know the judgment was about the other woman. What I don't understand is how the OP can claim that this lawsuit was good because it held both parties responsible for their actions, when it was the OW who was singled-out, while the only one who had any real responsibility to the wife got off scot-free.

 

 

 

Right, but the lawsuit is based on a law called "Alienation of Affection." The idea isn't that she slept with a married man, but that she was the cause of his "alienation of affection" toward his wife. Like the OW can be solely to blame for causing the man to lose affection toward his wife, especially a man who admitted to having multiple affairs.

 

 

 

Well, seeing as how it's usually men who cheat: statistically, this kind of law is in their favor.

 

Regardless, the day a married man whose wife cheats wins a lawsuit against the other man under the "alienation of affection" law is the day that pigs fly.

 

I do agree that both the cheaters out to be held responsible, not just the woman in this case. I have a problem with that part as well.

 

The woman that sued had the choice to sue her husband and didn't. Just like the OW had the choice to sleep with the woman's husband. Life is hardly fair and as long as I am keeping my side of the street clean I have nothing to worry about.

 

The argument seems to be if the judgement was fair to the OW. I don't think the OW really is worried about what is fair in life until she is the one suffering the consequences. What would have been fair is if she had not had an affair with someone else's husband.

 

I can't say that she was the sole cause of his alienation of affection towards his wife, but I can say she had to have played a significant role. If the OW wasn't there to squeeze into his wifes shoes along with the wife the man would have had to deal with his marriage. Maybe they would have ended up splitting and maybe they wouldn't have. No one knows. I do believe the OW made a convenient diversion for the man.

 

The man was pathetic in not dealing with his marriage and either ending it or working on it. Sad he wasn't a part of the case. I personally think the judgement should have been split down the middle between the husband and the OW.

 

Either way she cheated and paid a price. If she didn't cheat to begin with and had some morals about her at all she would not be in this position in the first place.

[Clep]

If you mean that as a society we have a responsibility to one another--to help each other uphold certain values, etc.: I agree. The OW should have told the MM to go home to his wife. Still, it's easier said than done. We are emotional beings, and we can't help who we feel attracted to. Ultimately, yes, we are rational beings (as well as emotional beings) who have a choice: do the morally right thing that complies with reason, or act upon our emotions.

 

In a utopia, I would agree that we all should have a responsibility to help other members of society out by encouraging various moral values and discouraging immoral actions--in a utopia, I also think that we should be held accountable if we fail to do so. However, in America, I just don't see this kind of "one individual taking the responsibility for the actions of themselves as well as other individual members of society whose actions he/she may have influenced" system working.

 

I believe if a person has wavering boundaries or none at all it is easier said than done. If I know a man is married I am not interested in him regardless of what he looks like.

 

This woman didn't take responsibility for the actions of herself as well as anyone's else she may have influenced. She was forced to take responsibility for her own. The man was not named in the lawsuit therefore it would be hard for a judge to make him responsible. The lawsuit naming her has nothing to do with him and he was no part of it. The judge wasn't making her responsible for him, but for just her part in it.

 

I am confused as to why you keep professing she took responsibility for him too.

[Clep]

However, in America, I just don't see this kind of "one individual taking the responsibility for the actions of themselves as well as other individual members of society whose actions he/she may have influenced" system working.

 

I forgot to mention that there is an increase in cheating, divorce, domestic violence and every other nasty thing going on in this world. What has been done has not been working so maybe it is time to try something else.

 

Insanity is doing something the same way over and over expecting different results. This might be interesting to see the outcome.

[always_searching]

This judgement was about the OW not the husband. I believe it should have been about both and agree with the fact that he had the real responsibility to his wife.

 

Because the way this particular law works is based upon the husband's alienation of affection toward his wife. So, ultimately, this OW wasn't being sued for being an immoral cheater, she was sued for causing the husband to have an alienation of affection toward his wife.

 

How can anyone be held solely responsible for another woman's husband's affections being alienated, unless she locked him in a room, undressed herself, and forced him to sleep with her via threats/gun-point? It doesn't make any sense. Especially considering she was apparently only one of many--MANY--women the husband had slept with. The husband is the one who should be held responsible for his affections and whether or not they were/are alienated. The OW may have acted immorally by sleeping with a MM, but I keep professing she took responsibility for him, because that's exactly what she did: she took the blame for both she and the husband's actions which caused an apparent "alienation of affection" of the husband toward the wife.

 

For example: I'm a philosophy major. Say I meet a theologian who peaks my interest in the realm of theology. So, I stray from philosophy, and enter into a major of theology. Now, I assume everyone would agree that I am responsible for the decision to change my major. It would be like the theologian taking the blame for my switching majors. Yes, he/she made theology sound very interesting, and maybe enticed me to look more into the field, but, ultimately, I am responsible for taking action upon my interest, and I am the one who is responsible for allowing my interest to wane from philosophy to theology. Now, wouldn't it sound stupid if my philosophy advisor decided to sue the theologian for being solely responsible for my alienation of affection toward philosophy? Yes, the theologian made a choice to discuss theology with me, but if my affections for philosophy were really that strong to begin with, do you really think anyone could entice me to be more interested in theology?

 

As my example isn't a moral one and is concerning disciplines rather than people, it is flawed. However, the point is the same: ultimately, you can't blame someone else for another's actions. So, to say that the OW is solely to blame for the alienation of the husband's affections toward his wife is mistaken. Yet, that is exactly what was implicitly stated by the judge when he/she ruled in the wife's favor.

Edited March 27, 2010 by always_searching

[Lovelybird]

In my opinion, the husband and OW both should be charged $8 millions. They both should take responsibility. OW isn't a child. If a society becomes like this, then the wives can make a great fortune. although they may not really want this, but, some money won't hurt.

 

Either way, OW cannot simply be off the hook. she may want to drag the cheater with her, but both should pay