Tony T Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 An interesting article in Newsweek on the subject: http://www.newsweek.com/ID/235504 I don't think lawsuits are the answer. Few mistresses have assets worth suing for.
threebyfate Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 It's less about acquiring the assets and more about payback for emotional distress. Your behaviour DIRECTLY causes me grief, so have some direct grief back. Straight up, I don't have a problem with this, since I sincerely have zero sympathy for any third parties.
califnan Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 It's less about acquiring the assets and more about payback for emotional distress. Your behaviour DIRECTLY causes me grief, so have some direct grief back. Straight up, I don't have a problem with this, since I sincerely have zero sympathy for any third parties. ---------------------- I was going to say no.. Allow them rot in the mire that they have created. But since there are more frivolous lawsuits than this ... Why not? After all Aliede did push (big time) for me to loose the house. Lost more than that with the real estate: lost almost a million in Appreciation, and modest property taxes ..
spriggig Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Allowed? Sure. I'm all for trial by jury. Should a jury actually award any damages? Almost never. I'm a BS, should I be allowed to sue the OM? Yeah. Should I actually do that? It would be ridiculous. All I really want in that area is for him to admit to himself that he should have made the moral and honest choice and not slept with a woman he knew before hand was married with kids. Ideally, he'd also accept his small responsibility in standing between she and I and the further damage that cause our relationship--however small. A court can't make that happen.
quankanne Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 there aren't going to be any real damages awarded, and the court costs would be astronomical, but then again, having it documented by the court that this person (male or female affair partner) is morally corrupt and would stoop at any level to take what he/she wanted could be a satisfying revenge. however, it's more along the lines of a revenge fantasy. In reality, the two people in the affair go along their merry ways while the betrayed spouse is left to pick of the pieces of a shattered life ...
Spark1111 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Because divorces have grown so messy and contentious, you cannot sue your spouse for alienation of affection and all those other antiquated laws in most states following an affair. It just clogs the courts and the courts are mostly interested in becoming unclogged. Except, apparently, the state of North Carolina. However, a third party that knowingly helps your spouse violate a contract, marital or financial, seems to be another matter in court. While the winning of this lawsuit against the mistress garnered publicity, it is not the norm. What is gaining favor is the recovering of marital assets unknowingly spent by one married partner on a paramour in civil court, if the paramour knew the partner was married. It can be used as a bargaining chip to ante up assets in the divorce proceedings. In civil court, anyone can still sue anyone for money! Hell, half the cost of those dinners, limos, and "business" trips belonged to me and my children!:laugh:
Fallen Angel Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 As an OW in a state that not only still has the "allienation of affection" law, but also has criminal conversation, and a statute that allows for criminal prosecution of unfaithful spouses and their "other", let me assure you that those laws are not a deterrent. Should she be allowed to sue? Sure, if that is what trips her trigger. Should she win? A jury decides that. Will she actually ever see a dime, not likely. I, personally, am not ashamed of loving the man I love, and if it went to court and be plastered all over the papers for some silly lawsuit, I would still not be ashamed. I think the "shame" factor is why most BSs file the suit, in my case it would not matter one iota to me, so would be a failure for his wife on all fronts.
Spark1111 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Plus, the first time a jury awarded damages, it was to a married man whose wife left him and the kids for another man! He sued the other man and won! He knew he would never see a dime, but he did not care. He just wanted someone to say what had happened to he and his children was wrong. Revenge? I think moe along the lines of validation for some, and punishment by public disgrace for others.
LucreziaBorgia Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 a third party that knowingly helps your spouse violate a contract, marital or financial, seems to be another matter Indeed it is here in NC. You aren't suing someone else because your spouse doesn't love you. You are suing someone else because they were an accessory to the crime of adultery. Accessories to crimes are punished just like the perpetrators - it is no different in NC.
Samantha0905 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Interesting 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?
carhill Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 I wonder why, as a serial adulterer in the state of NC, the husband wasn't prosecuted and jailed? According to the legal books I've found, such a crime, upon conviction, is punishable by a sentence in the county jail. Apparently, in his 33 years of marriage, he had numerous affairs. Perhaps his apple wasn't yet ripe for picking Regarding civil lawsuits, take a look inside a typical case, involving H and OM, in NC. Most of the cases I've found in NC are between H and OM.
Fallen Angel Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Interesting 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? Who knows? because in the case recently in the news, the husband admitted that he had been having affairs on his wife for over 25 years, and said there had been no maritial love for decades. I assume this award will be overturned by a higher court, since the husband and wife do not agree that maritial love existed, her claim to allienation of affection is invalid and must therefore be legally overturned. The jury gave the verdict it did because they are trying to send a "morals" message. The courts though are not about what is "moral" they are about the letter of the law. I am certain this award will not be allowed to stand.
Fallen Angel Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 I wonder why, as a serial adulterer in the state of NC, the husband wasn't prosecuted and jailed? According to the legal books I've found, such a crime, upon conviction, is punishable by a sentence in the county jail. Apparently, in his 33 years of marriage, he had numerous affairs. Perhaps his apple wasn't yet ripe for picking Regarding civil lawsuits, take a look inside a typical case, involving H and OM, in NC. Most of the cases I've found in NC are between H and OM. I believe that while the statute is on the books, not many judges and/or prosecutors feel able to judge morality like that. It is an old law, based on the idea that married women are chattel. It should have been abolished long ago.
Samantha0905 Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 The jury gave the verdict it did because they are trying to send a "morals" message. The courts though are not about what is "moral" they are about the letter of the law. I am certain this award will not be allowed to stand. I certainly hope not. Interesting Judge Judy clip on the other thread about this.
carhill Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 From Roe v. Wade to Bowers v Hardwick, courts, including the highest court, promulgate their viewpoint on 'morality' from the bench all the time. I guess how one views the process depends on one's perspective regarding the subject. Just look to Shackleford v Lundquist, along with other similar cases I've cited, for an example. There have been plenty which have passed the sniff test upon appeal, even to the NC State Supreme Court. Further, what is our society's rule of law based upon?
Fallen Angel Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 From Roe v. Wade to Bowers v Hardwick, courts, including the highest court, promulgate their viewpoint on 'morality' from the bench all the time. I guess how one views the process depends on one's perspective regarding the subject. Just look to Shackleford v Lundquist, along with other similar cases I've cited, for an example. There have been plenty which have passed the sniff test upon appeal, even to the NC State Supreme Court. Further, what is our society's rule of law based upon? I will give you that throughout history our laws have been based upon what people considered moral at the time. However, ideas about what is moral and what is not, change slightly with each generation. Not too very long ago a caucasian woman marrying a man of color was considered immoral, as well. The changes in views on morality bring about changes in the law, hence the fact that most states no longer have such "morals" laws on the books. North Carolina and six other states are a bit behind the times in that respect, but I expect they will be forced to catch up sooner rather than later, as the increase in the diversity of cultures demands a change in the views of what is "morally just" and what is simply just. I am in agreement that we need laws to regulate society, but I do not agree that society has a right to decide for me what is moral. That is a decision that God granted to me, when he gave me free will.
carhill Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 If one's morals are at odds with the laws of the community, one retains free will. They do not necessarily maintain the free and exclusive right to the community's approval, affirmation, or tolerance. BTW, think spouses should not be able to sue mistresses. There are a lot of other laws I think are stupid/outdated/discriminatory. Regardless, if I wish to remain a free member of this community, I must obey such laws or face the consequences, or, of course, leave the community to find a more suitable place to exercise my free will. I also can choose to devote my life to changing and evolving such laws, and some people do that. Good on 'em. Society needs more people like that.
Eve Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 An interesting article in Newsweek on the subject: http://www.newsweek.com/ID/235504 I don't think lawsuits are the answer. Few mistresses have assets worth suing for. I dont think it healthy to create yet more money making opportunities for legal professionals! Instead I would support a ban on re-marraige of between 5 - 10 years for any cheating spouse. Maybe cheaters would be more inclined to legitimately end their marriage and set the partner free if there were consequences to their personal freedom only? Take care, Eve xx
sally4sara Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 It makes sense on paper, but it would be abused all to hell and back. "Hey wife, how about you target that rich dude who just moved to town? Get him to sleep with you and I'll sue him!"
Chrome Barracuda Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Yeah, LMAO. Why not. You knowingly interrupted someone's marriage for your own selfish needs and gains, hurting everyone involved. Why should you walk away unscathed?
Star Gazer Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 This is interesting. It's kinda like a loss of consortium claim. For example, if someone runs over your spouse and kills/maims them, you can sue them for loss of consortium. But to have a strong claim for loss of consortium, you basically have to prove that your relationship was rock solid. If your spouse was cheating on you, the value of your claim plummets. Further, if your spouse made some foolish decisions that caused him/her, for example, to be standing in the middle of the street not paying attention when they got run over, or worse yet, run out into the middle of the street and the driver didn't even have a chance to react before making contact, those decisions (i.e., comparitive negligence) by your spouse will be imputed to you. This will also cut the value of the claim down, if not entirely (depends on how much "fault" is attributable to the person standing in the street vs. the driver). So, if your spouse is an idiot standing in the middle of the road, and she/was cheating on you, the result is that you're unlikely to prevail in the claim... even when the result is that your spouse is DEAD! So I'm not sure how/why there should be a claim when the spouse is entirely responsible for their actions and remains alive and well.
Fallen Angel Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 If one's morals are at odds with the laws of the community, one retains free will. They do not necessarily maintain the free and exclusive right to the community's approval, affirmation, or tolerance. BTW, think spouses should not be able to sue mistresses. There are a lot of other laws I think are stupid/outdated/discriminatory. Regardless, if I wish to remain a free member of this community, I must obey such laws or face the consequences, or, of course, leave the community to find a more suitable place to exercise my free will. I also can choose to devote my life to changing and evolving such laws, and some people do that. Good on 'em. Society needs more people like that. Since it has been outed for several days that I live in just such a backward and behind the times state , perhaps I will have to get involved with just such a cause. I am certain an internet search will find me several groups to join in an effort to support just such a cause.
datura_noir Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 It is not for me to judge which states are antiquated in their laws. Thier laws are laws and are in place. The woman took advantage of the law, and, obviously, a jury of peers agreed. I would be more inclined to go after the AP for the joint assets spent during the affair. My husband loaned her over $2,000, bought her a PC, took her on a vacation to a nice hotel, expensive restaurants,rented cars, etc...The total was well over $15,000. I worked and put money in OUR account, yet I didn't have access to bank records during this time, so I didn't have a clue. As soon as I did, I saw what was spent. Why should MY money be spent on her? She should have gotten a job like the rest of us working slobs. Obviously, my husband can't repay me monetarily, because we have joint assets, so that's out. I've come to terms with it over the years, thanks to my Sis (a former OW), who said "Look at it this way-you helped finance her through tough times-she owes you alot of gratitude for that!"
Samantha0905 Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 From Roe v. Wade to Bowers v Hardwick, courts, including the highest court, promulgate their viewpoint on 'morality' from the bench all the time. I guess how one views the process depends on one's perspective regarding the subject. Just look to Shackleford v Lundquist, along with other similar cases I've cited, for an example. There have been plenty which have passed the sniff test upon appeal, even to the NC State Supreme Court. Further, what is our society's rule of law based upon? Hmmmm. One's perspective upon the subject? Well pat yourself on the back for being "right" and sniff worthy. And not having to leave the community...
Samantha0905 Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 (edited) We all have a perspective. I'm still stuck on thinking a marriage contract is between a man and a woman. Don't go after the other person. Whichever person in the marriage contract went "after" the OP -- well, that was enough. I think when a BS goes after the other person -- they are misguided. Edited March 29, 2010 by Samantha0905
Recommended Posts