always_searching Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) 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. LOL, I think you're on to something! Here's what I'm envisioning: a woman finds an unsuspecting man, marries him, deliberately drives him to cheat, then sues the OW for millions of dollars, all while receiving alimony from her divorce. CA-CHING! It's the "Get Rich Quick Guide for American Women," 2010 edition! Edited March 27, 2010 by always_searching
always_searching Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 Also, it seems as though, this way, everyone gets something: the husband gets to have sex with his wife and OW; the wife get's money from both the husband and the OW; and the other woman gets screwed, both literally (via the husband) and figuratively (via the wife)! :lmao:
Author Lovelybird Posted March 27, 2010 Author Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) If the OW is strong decent enough, she won't be trapped in the first place, so is the husband. So it comes down to characters in the end, your own integrity will protect you. If one never be burnt by fire, then the one never know how harmful a fire is. A society trys to protect people from the consequence of their bad behaviours is a not good society. . Edited March 27, 2010 by Lovelybird
Lizzie60 Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 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. Yep it's in appeal.. and I wish it's overturned.. how ridiculous.. The OW should turn around and sue THEM!
carhill Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 The MM and the OW live together and wrote a book together, which was published approximately the same time as the lawsuit was filed (2007), from my readings. Here's the previous thread running on LS on this subject Another NC has some interesting laws.
WalkInThePark Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 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 Well, if I understand it correctly, the OW is now living together with the ex-husband so the ex-husband has made his choice. So what a bitter witch the ex-wife is. She probably thinks she can now cause troube in the relationship between her ex-husband and the OW. Ok, that might happen but does she really thinks the ex-husband will come running to her? Ofcourse it is hard to see your husband of many years run off with another women. But let's be honest, these couples which started in their early twenties, how often did not one of the two softly pressure the other one into marriage? A sane woman would just move on after her divorce. Yes it's hard to divorcd after many years but there is no law which says you are obliged to stick to your first wife/husband. I mean, people change, why do you have to stay with the person you chose when you hardly knew who you were yourself?
Author Lovelybird Posted March 28, 2010 Author Posted March 28, 2010 Well, if I understand it correctly, the OW is now living together with the ex-husband so the ex-husband has made his choice. So what a bitter witch the ex-wife is. She probably thinks she can now cause troube in the relationship between her ex-husband and the OW. Ok, that might happen but does she really thinks the ex-husband will come running to her? Ofcourse it is hard to see your husband of many years run off with another women. But let's be honest, these couples which started in their early twenties, how often did not one of the two softly pressure the other one into marriage? A sane woman would just move on after her divorce. Yes it's hard to divorcd after many years but there is no law which says you are obliged to stick to your first wife/husband. I mean, people change, why do you have to stay with the person you chose when you hardly knew who you were yourself? No, I don't think the wife wants to take the husband back. She maybe want them to taste a little bit what she suffered. She may be bitter, but who made her? the OW and unfaithful husband. She may not be bitter anymore, just want to teach two kids some life lessons. Maybe the husband and OW treated her nastily, didn't offer her a little bit grace, so the wife responds accordingly. Bottom line one should not drool over what are others. I think the natural consequences (the pain they suffer) are teaching them something, but some don't take it seriously. Basically an affair is based on one's "needy need"-- I have to have him and his love, even that means destroy your marriage and kids and your trust for a man who vowed to you, even that means that will destroy you emotionally spiritually, I am on this task, because if not, I am going to be dying, I will not feel bad for destroying you, because nobody care a sh**t about me, why should I bother? Don't you think it is ironic that OW or OM seek for love which destroy others? what is love in it? In the end it is all about self-satisfaction
Samantha0905 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 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 I think not as far as legal consequences are concerned. The husband and wife entered into a legal agreement. If it's broken, it's between them. She may be bitter, but who made her? the OW and unfaithful husband. Neither the husband or OW "made" the wife feel anything. She's in charge of herself and her emotions. It's a slippery slope to legislate morality in romantic relationships. I understand if a husband and wife enter into a marriage -- there's a legal agreement between the two of them. If he (or she) breaks it, she/he should be able to file for divorce (if desired) and they split what they jointly own, etc. And I can't remember who said it -- but the comment was "North Carolina has some interesting laws" -- welcome to the Southeast!! Craziness.
whichwayisup Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Neither the husband or OW "made" the wife feel anything. She's in charge of herself and her emotions. Wow..Just wow. So, a wife who finds out her husband has been cheating, has betrayed her, isn't allowed to blame her husband (or the OW for her part) in the affair? Is she supposed to suck it up and hand over her husband with a big smile on her face? She isn't allowed to feel UPSET, feel ANGRY, feel HURT, BETRAYED? In all my time at LS, I've never seen anybody say anything like this. Ever.
carhill Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Likely there was a whole bunch of ownership of emotion in the 33 year marriage, on both sides. Many choices were made and responsibilities owned. This is a reminder that anyone can be sued for anything. Hire a good enough lawyer and present a good enough case and a nice judgment can result. Cynthia told the jury she gave up teaching to raise two kids and support her husband's career and when they separated, she had to move in with friends because she could not afford an apartment. The jury awarded the money for alienation of affections, criminal conversation or adultery, and intentional or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. I'm still looking for the docket number to review any published records. No luck so far. Here's a sample case of similar type, filed by a husband against the OM, along with the NC Supreme Court's opinion in June 2009, reversing an appeals court ruling and remanding the case back to appeals.
xxoo Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Neither the husband or OW "made" the wife feel anything. She's in charge of herself and her emotions. So is the OW. No one is making her feel anything in regard to the verdict, either. Nonetheless, I bet most of us can imagine some of her natural human feelings about the situation. In the end, it is about choosing actions and accepting consequences. The OW chose to engage in a sexual relationship with a married man. The affair contributed to the downfall of the marriage, resulting in reduced financial security for the wife. She saw a legal opportunity to somewhat balance the situation, and took advantage of it. The rest of the story is the court's opinion, and would vary with the judge and the local culture.
Samantha0905 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Wow..Just wow. So, a wife who finds out her husband has been cheating, has betrayed her, isn't allowed to blame her husband (or the OW for her part) in the affair? Is she supposed to suck it up and hand over her husband with a big smile on her face? She isn't allowed to feel UPSET, feel ANGRY, feel HURT, BETRAYED? In all my time at LS, I've never seen anybody say anything like this. Ever. I did not say that. I said she has to own her own feelings and I clearly pointed out the legal action should be between the husband and the wife. A BS can have at it with legal action against the person who broke the marriage agreement if they so desire. I also think a BS can feel anything they choose to feel towards the OP. I simply don't think they should be able to take them to take legal action against the OP. I'm not a proponent of alienation of affection laws. Luckily, they do not exist in my state. So is the OW. No one is making her feel anything in regard to the verdict, either. Nonetheless, I bet most of us can imagine some of her natural human feelings about the situation. It will more than likely be overturned. In the end, it is about choosing actions and accepting consequences. The OW chose to engage in a sexual relationship with a married man. The affair contributed to the downfall of the marriage, resulting in reduced financial security for the wife. She saw a legal opportunity to somewhat balance the situation, and took advantage of it. The rest of the story is the court's opinion, and would vary with the judge and the local culture. As I said -- I simply do not agree with alienation of affection judgments against the OP. Hopefully, the verdict will be overturned. I'm all for the betrayed wife divorcing her husband if she chooses and coming out ahead in any way she can in legal actions against HER HUSBAND -- the person who joined with her legally in marriage. I'm sure there have been -- and continue to be -- some consequences in being the OW in this situation. I don't think legal action should be allowed to be taken against said woman by the BS.
Samantha0905 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 I posted this in a thread in the Infidelity section, but thought it might be found interesting in this thread also -- Information I found about alienation of affection on eHow: "Today, most states have abolished this theory on the basis that married people are not the property of another. Most states have no-fault divorce, and infidelity is somewhat irrelevant to the proceedings in a no-fault divorce. Only seven states continue to allow tort actions for alienation of affection: Illinois, Utah, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Dakota." Thank goodness my backward state has figured something out. We didn't make the list. I have to agree married people are not each other's property. "In the case of a spouse who brings a tort claim for alienation of affection against a party accused of this offense, there is a burden of proof that must be met before recovery may be sought. The movant must prove intent to maliciously interfere with the marriage where marital love existed and that love was alienated and destroyed by the third party's interference. Where marital love did not exist or where the marriage is still intact and damage did not result, no recovery will be permitted." How in the world would they prove whether marital love existed or not?
Holding-On Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 To lighten things up a bit, a Judge Judy clip on alienation of affection. Quite clever really (if you watch all the way to the end). (JJ is an arbitrator, so she can decide what she wants, this isn't an actual "court case" so to speak as I understand it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A1pHdO5SiE
Recommended Posts