Woggle Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I am curious to know what your responses in this thread would've been had it been a husband who was awarded that money because his wife cheated on him. I would say the same if a man wanted to sue the OM.
MizzBlue72 Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 The whole thing is ridiculous ... the H and W will probably end up reuniting and splitting the profits from the lawsuit .... and the book
donnamaybe Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 This woman could better revenge by being happy and moving on with her life. This just shows she is still bitter. She's probably HAPPIER and moving on with her life after the court ruling.
Samantha0905 Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I think it's ridiculous. Do we need lawyers for everything in life? I found this in an article when I googled the story: The sum of $9 million is for the emotional distress, loss of support, and alienation of affection. "She set her sights on him. ... She knew he was married," Shackelford said of Lundquist Monday. "You don't go after married men and break up families." (ABC) ABC's Good Morning America reports the money wasn't her decision. The jury awarded the amount on their own. Shackelford stated her husband had been having affairs since the first 2 years of marriage and the couple failed to reconcile differences after 3 rounds of marriage counseling. She "set her sights on him?" OMG!! What was he -- some helpless victim? "She knew he was married?" Apparently he forgot. Poor baby. So, he's been having affairs since the first two years of their marriage. I'd say he broke up their marriage and family. I think alienation of affection is a pile of poo. I understand things happened to the wife which were unfair to her and he broke the marriage contract. I don't think the wife should be able to legally go after the OW. Crappy stuff happens. There are some things that should not be legal matters. A divorce is a legal matter.
Spark1111 Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 A court of law should not be used to validate a person's emotions. I feel bad for the BW but suing an OW is taking it too far. She did not put a gun to the man's head and make him cheat. I agree with you woggle. But court's of law are used to validate people's emotions all the time. I guess it depends on how angry you feel and how creative you want to be. You will find an attorney to take your case, whether it be for money, fame, or retribution. And now because of publicity, I believe MORE people will try and take this route.
OWoman Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I think alienation of affection is a pile of poo.. For affection to be alienated, it first needs to exist. If he was stoking the fires of passion elsewhere since almost the beginning of the M, I'd say there was little to alienate.
stillafool Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I wonder what OW/OM have to say about this? Does this sound like an unfair judgement to you? Of course, I have my own opinion and it's probably not going to be well digested. Yes, I think it was about time that those who cause pain and suffering are brought to at least civil court. IMHO-Maybe it will make women within the 7 states that this century old law exist, think twice before they go boinking with a married man. Where did this happen? Boy if this kind of thing takes on women will be running ads to help their husbands cheat. Which would you rather have - a cheating husband or $9,000,000.00?
OWoman Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Where did this happen? I think it was North Carolina - there's another thread on it here Boy if this kind of thing takes on women will be running ads to help their husbands cheat. I know a MM who placed an ad for his BW (without her knowing) on some dating site, so I guess that's possible. Especially with that kind of incentive...
threebyfate Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 From what I've read about this scenario, the BW isn't doing this for the money. She's doing this for payback, as well as ensuring that others are aware of the potential implications of getting involved with married people. While the OW in question is going to appeal the judgement, if her request for an appeal gets turned down, she's going to have to declare bankruptcy. Considering that the OW isn't a youngun', in this day and age of credit ratings, her future won't be looking too purty.
carhill Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I'm pretty sure the OW's BF, who lives with her, the WS, the lawyer, has perfected 'Plan B' for such eventualities. Depending on the kind of law he practices, the publicity could even help his billings, negating the impact of a bankruptcy on his girlfriend. Good thing they aren't married
In_Repair Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 All you have to do is mention the words affair and divorce, together in the same sentence, to a lawyer in NC and you will be advised of these laws. This case isn't going to change anything. I haven't even bothered with the details of this case as it's a somewhat common thing here. This is the biggest, but certainly not the first. From what I have heard though, there must be quite a few details that are being left out because while criminal conversation is rather easy to prove, this case was about alienation of affection, which is supposed to be much harder to pull off in court. The thing about him having multiple affairs throughout the marriage? Yeah... his girlfriend is being sued for ALIENATION OF AFFECTION... claiming himself to be a serial cheater before the OW even came into the picture is simply a way of protecting her by implying that there was never any affection there to begin with. His girlfriend's lawyer told him to say that. In most cases though, even when it could clearly be proven and you would receive a judgement under the law, it's not even worth the time and legal fees. In reality, most single OM/OW are in a worse financial state than the BS, and If the OW/OM is also married, then it becomes an even bigger pile of crap to sort through.
threebyfate Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I'm pretty sure the OW's BF, who lives with her, the WS, the lawyer, has perfected 'Plan B' for such eventualities. Depending on the kind of law he practices, the publicity could even help his billings, negating the impact of a bankruptcy on his girlfriend. Good thing they aren't married The interesting part about this, is that he's yet to pay the $5K/month spousal support, he's supposed to pay. With this in mind, I suspect he has to keep his nose as clean as possible... I look forward to reading the outcome of this battle, from many perspectives.
torranceshipman Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 This woman could better revenge by being happy and moving on with her life. This just shows she is still bitter. We're not talking about a bitter woman here...she WAS a bitter woman I'm sure, but after $9m and the chance to show up the MM and the OW in public...I think she's probably a pretty happy woman
LucreziaBorgia Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 This case is more of an exception here in NC than the rule. Only a handful of cases have been 'won' in this way. It is hard to win a case like this - criminal conversation is much easier to go after than alienation of affection. Anyone who interferes in a marriage can be sued for AOA, whether it be a cult group that encourages your spouse to leave, or someone who helped your spouse hide the cheating - such is the case where Elizabeth Edwards is going after Andrew Young for AOA. Now, criminal conversation is easy - all you have to do is prove your spouse had sex with someone else during your marriage regardless of what emotional state the marriage was in. I suspect eventually Elizabeth will go after Rielle on this one. I guess we'll see. Most people don't have the money to pay a lawyer for a case like this. I can tell you this: it isn't unusual around here for the BS to threaten a CC case against an OW to force her to back off. I know one BS who made an OW leave the state permanently just by threatening to take her to court. Here, you hear people refer to it as "naming so-and-so in the divorce".
Woggle Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Doesn't AOA imply that the cheating spouse is not responsible for their actions. OW/OM are wrong in what they do but they could not exist if people chose not to cheat. This is another case of our courts being used for purposes they were not intended for. You shouldn't just be able to sue somebody for millions of dollars because they slept with your spouse.
threebyfate Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Doesn't AOA imply that the cheating spouse is not responsible for their actions. OW/OM are wrong in what they do but they could not exist if people chose not to cheat. This is another case of our courts being used for purposes they were not intended for. You shouldn't just be able to sue somebody for millions of dollars because they slept with your spouse.It's a 50/50 scenario, where both the cheating spouse and the OW, are responsible for their portion.
thereal_yeti Posted April 4, 2010 Posted April 4, 2010 I look at this with simple eyes.. A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO people.. Meaning, if a spouse breaks one of the terms of the condition, IE to be sexualy exclusive.. It is not up to the third party to assure that the contract isn't broken, they aren't apart of the contract.. It would be like if you were to write up a contract with a carpenter that for x amount of years THEY will do all your carpentry work. Then you hire another carpenter.. should your original carpenter be allowed to sue the new carpenter? NO Now with that said, if someone were to persue a married person, and they married person asked them to leave them alone, yet they continuly HARRASS them, that would fall under another law.
OWoman Posted April 4, 2010 Posted April 4, 2010 I look at this with simple eyes.. A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO people.. Meaning, if a spouse breaks one of the terms of the condition, IE to be sexualy exclusive.. It is not up to the third party to assure that the contract isn't broken, they aren't apart of the contract.. It would be like if you were to write up a contract with a carpenter that for x amount of years THEY will do all your carpentry work. Then you hire another carpenter.. should your original carpenter be allowed to sue the new carpenter? NO Now with that said, if someone were to persue a married person, and they married person asked them to leave them alone, yet they continuly HARRASS them, that would fall under another law. Exactly. ..
LucreziaBorgia Posted April 4, 2010 Posted April 4, 2010 A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO people.. It is not up to the third party to assure that the contract isn't broken, they aren't apart of the contract.. In NC, it isn't about the contract. Adultery is against the law here. It is about committing the crime of adultery and being punished for committing that crime. Most people don't consider adultery a crime, but in this state it is and that is what the other person is being sued for: committing the crime of adultery with someone else's spouse.
BUENG1 Posted April 4, 2010 Posted April 4, 2010 I look at this with simple eyes.. A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO people.. Meaning, if a spouse breaks one of the terms of the condition, IE to be sexualy exclusive.. It is not up to the third party to assure that the contract isn't broken, they aren't apart of the contract.. It would be like if you were to write up a contract with a carpenter that for x amount of years THEY will do all your carpentry work. Then you hire another carpenter.. should your original carpenter be allowed to sue the new carpenter? NO Now with that said, if someone were to persue a married person, and they married person asked them to leave them alone, yet they continuly HARRASS them, that would fall under another law. Actually yes the first carpenter can sue the second carpenter and it is done all the time. It is called contract interference.
Recommended Posts