Should spouses be allowed to sue mistresses?

[BUENG1]

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.

 

Actually when a contract is between two people and a third person knowingly interferes that person is liable as well. Examples are non competes between employer and employee alot of times the employees new employer will get sued when violation occurs. Similar to this case

[Kenyth]

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!"

 

 

At first I thought this was a great idea, although it should be less about punitive damages and more about actual damages. Now that you mention this, I'm not so sure.

[EnigmaXOXO]

Emotions will always trump logic in these situations. That’s one thing the court of law will never be able to change regardless of which side of this grievous situation you find yourself standing on. How down-right crazy some people can get when they feel they’ve been unfairly injured or victimized is the one thing people always seem to forget. It’s convenient to defend how our own emotions trump logic when making irresponsible choices while forgetting the people you injure along the way are inclined to do the same.

 

I’d rather see these outraged victims appeased by giving them their day in court. Better they try to take their pound of flesh in the court room rather than on the streets. Even if they gain no real monetary compensation, some will walk away satisfied that the responsible parties have been called to the carpet and their victim statement has been heard. At least in that way they become real to the perpetrators of their injury rather than just some invisible casualty of circumstance.

 

You’d be surprised at just how much finally ‘being heard’ can take the sting out of someone’s anger. We see it here all the time. And who knows, it could even save a few lives that way.

[sally4sara]

At first I thought this was a great idea, although it should be less about punitive damages and more about actual damages. Now that you mention this, I'm not so sure.

 

Yup; a whole new take on the "indecent proposal".

 

Don't ya just KNOW someone would try it. Its a perfect con opportunity.

[BlueeyedJonesy]

you bet your #$@ I would. Physical violence is never the answer...

[CollectiveVelvet]

If a wife has actual monetary damages resulting from the actions of a third party the disturb or break a contract he/she is not involved in then yes, sue away.

[Spark1111]

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.

 

It is a contract between a man and woman; a legal one recognized by the state that entitles the spouses to many benefits such as sharing health care, benefits, joint assets, property and tax deductions.

 

Whether you believe it is more of a religious or cultural tradition, it is also a legally binding one too.

 

Hence you can sue to separate, divorce, and recover lost assets.

[Samantha0905]

It is a contract between a man and woman; a legal one recognized by the state that entitles the spouses to many benefits such as sharing health care, benefits, joint assets, property and tax deductions.

 

Whether you believe it is more of a religious or cultural tradition, it is also a legally binding one too.

 

Hence you can sue to separate, divorce, and recover lost assets.

 

Yes, I know. The contract is between the two married people.

[LucreziaBorgia]

It isn't just the contract part - adultery is actually a crime here in NC, and just like any other crime, if you are an accessory to that crime you can be punished for it.

 

Now, granted it is a misdemeanor so there aren't too many lawyers out there who want to waste time and resources on stuff like this.

[Dexter Morgan]

for as much disgust as I have for people messing around with other people's spouses, and more for the cheating spouses themselves, I think suing is a ridiculous idea....delicious idea, but ridiculous nonetheless.

 

Only time I think it would be proper if it can be proven that marital assets were given to the OM/OW in an attempt to shield those assets from the BS's entitlement to half of it.

[NoIDidn't]

Should spouses be able to sue the OP? Absolutely. If that's what they want to do, and its perfectly legal. I say, have at it.

[OWoman]

Should spouses be able to sue the OP? Absolutely. If that's what they want to do' date=' and its perfectly legal. I say, have at it.[/quote']

 

So... if somebody wants to do something, and it's perfectly legal - then it's OK to do it? I never thought I'd hear a fBS legitimising As on the Infidelity Board

[Fallen Angel]

So... if somebody wants to do something, and it's perfectly legal - then it's OK to do it? I never thought I'd hear a fBS legitimising As on the Infidelity Board

 

Except here in NC.. lol

[grogster]

A tortious interference with marital relations claim is conceivable. The OW/OM is interfering, with improper motive/intent, in the BS's marriage. Society does view such conduct as reprehensible, and, at a minimum, the BS suffers great emotional distress, which should entitle her/him to compensatory or, in extreme cases, punitive damages.

 

I can't imagine, however, the OW/OM's homeowners policy covering this kind of risk. Thus, absent a settlement, the OW/OM will most likely seek bankruptcy protection in the event of a large verdict.

 

Trial would be difficult for all parties. A good lawyer for the OW/OM will attempt to blame/fault the BS or WS for the infidelity: the BS's emotional cruelty, sexual withdrawal, a general unattractiveness; the WS's misrepresentation of the state or status of his marriage, and extreme aggressiveness.

 

If I represented a heart balm defendant, I would join the WS as an additional defendant and make him/her liable over to my client in the event the OW/OM defendant is found liable. Things could get very ugly, very fast. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Who knows, perhaps counsel would subpoena postings or Shackers here, assuming Shackers are involved in, or have personal knowledge of, the actionable Affair.

 

At most, then, it would be a moral, as opposed to financial, victory. I envision more betrayed wives, than husbands, seeking a judicial remedy. Men usually don't like to advertise the fact that they've been cuckholded.

[bentnotbroken]

Why not? Isn't the AP an accessory to the crime that is being committed in those states that have a law against adultery. I probably would have sued had I been in my home state(one of the few that has the law)especially after the continued contact with my children. Not all laws make sense and many are obsolete. But if it is still on the book, then it can be utilized.

[Fallen Angel]

A tortious interference with marital relations claim is conceivable. The OW/OM is interfering, with improper motive/intent, in the BS's marriage. Society does view such conduct as reprehensible, and, at a minimum, the BS suffers great emotional distress, which should entitle her/him to compensatory or, in extreme cases, punitive damages.

 

I can't imagine, however, the OW/OM's homeowners policy covering this kind of risk. Thus, absent a settlement, the OW/OM will most likely seek bankruptcy protection in the event of a large verdict.

 

Trial would be difficult for all parties. A good lawyer for the OW/OM will attempt to blame/fault the BS or WS for the infidelity: the BS's emotional cruelty, sexual withdrawal, a general unattractiveness; the WS's misrepresentation of the state or status of his marriage, and extreme aggressiveness.

 

If I represented a heart balm defendant, I would join the WS as an additional defendant and make him/her liable over to my client in the event the OW/OM defendant is found liable. Things could get very ugly, very fast. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Who knows, perhaps counsel would subpoena postings or Shackers here, assuming Shackers are involved in, or have personal knowledge of, the actionable Affair.

 

At most, then, it would be a moral, as opposed to financial, victory. I envision more betrayed wives, than husbands, seeking a judicial remedy. Men usually don't like to advertise the fact that they've been cuckholded.

 

Okay, if I ever get sued for allienation of affection, I am gonna hire you to represent me.

[NoIDidn't]

So... if somebody wants to do something, and it's perfectly legal - then it's OK to do it? I never thought I'd hear a fBS legitimising As on the Infidelity Board

 

Ummm, no.

 

If its legal to sue someone for AOA, then it follows that adultery is NOT legal in that state. Adultery is not legal in the states with the statute we are discussing.

 

Geez....

[NoIDidn't]

Why not? Isn't the AP an accessory to the crime that is being committed in those states that have a law against adultery. I probably would have sued had I been in my home state(one of the few that has the law)especially after the continued contact with my children. Not all laws make sense and many are obsolete. But if it is still on the book, then it can be utilized.

 

Exactly my point. If its still on the books, why not use it?

[OWoman]

Ummm, no.

 

If its legal to sue someone for AOA, then it follows that adultery is NOT legal in that state. Adultery is not legal in the states with the statute we are discussing.

 

Geez....

 

I'm talking principle, not specifics. :rolleyes:

 

If you're saying it's fine based on the principle that

1) someone wants to do it, and

2) it's perfectly legal,

 

then anything that meets those criteria is OK.

 

Which includes As (everywhere except in those few parts of America, and possibly some Arab states).

[OWoman]

Exactly my point. If its still on the books' date=' why not use it?[/quote']

 

Polygamy is "on the books" in my home country - but I don't see the need to M more than one H at a time

[carhill]

§ 14‑184. Fornication and adultery. If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other. (1805, c. 684, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 45; Code, s. 1041; Rev., s. 3350; C.S., s. 4343; 1969, c. 1224, s. 9; 1993, c. 539, s. 119; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14©.)

Source

 

Note: this appears to apply to any unmarried person, not just affairs between married and other persons.

[NoIDidn't]

Source

 

Note: this appears to apply to any unmarried person, not just affairs between married and other persons.

 

 

Carhill, I think you misunderstood the definition as rendered.

 

See, the single person is committing fornication in having sex while not married to the married person. The married person is committing adultery in having sex while not married to the single person.

[carhill]

If *any* man and woman, *not being married to each other*,

 

That's my interpretation, as my lawyer has taught me to say in court

[NoIDidn't]

I'm talking principle, not specifics. :rolleyes:

 

If you're saying it's fine based on the principle that

1) someone wants to do it, and

2) it's perfectly legal,

 

then anything that meets those criteria is OK.

 

Which includes As (everywhere except in those few parts of America, and possibly some Arab states).

 

Well, the problem with your arbitrary redefining the terms of what I was talking about is that I AM talking specifics.

 

If its not illegal to commit adultery, than I would not have supported suing the cheater's accomplice.

 

So, no, we don't agree on this because I am talking about certain considerations and you are not.

 

I disagree with adultery in principle as well.

[carhill]

Further, fornication:

 

Fornication is a term which typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried persons

Since the statute contains the word "fornication", it can be interpreted to apply to non-married single unattached consensual adults

 

BTW, I'm just trying to discern statute here. I'm not advocating one way or another. No dogs in this fight.

Edited March 30, 2010 by carhill