Suing the lover

[Kiki]

I was listening to a radio show this morning and this was their topic...

A woman sued her ex-husband's mistress for "alienation of affection" and won the case. She said that she had the perfect marriage and never saw any of this coming. Friends and family of this woman and her husband said the same thing... that those two had the perfect marriage. Apparentely this guys mistress was the one doing the pursuing and that's why his ex-wife was able to sue her. If he had been the one pursuing her, it would have been adultery. (which is a crime in itself) There are 12 States that have an "alienation of affection" law saying that you can sue your spouse's lover for the breakdown of your marriage.

So what do you think. Did she do the right thing by suing his mistress or was she just being petty and spiteful. What would you do?

I don't think I would sue. I would seek alimony though. I would just want to move on and get on with my life. Someone like that wouldn't be worth the effort.

[learae]

Just out of curiosity, what 12 states have this law? And what constitutes pursuing? I suppose he didn't invite this woman's attention in any manner??? I always thought it took 2 to tango. Sounds like a lame excuse to me...I'm sorry, dear.....she made me do it. learae

[ultress]

North Carolina is one of the states. This happened to one of my friends. She sued and won also. I think it's a good idea from the point that single women will think twice about having an affair with a married man, or a single guy having an affair with a married woman. I don't think that it much matters who does the pursuing. In my friend's case, the two pursued each other on about the same level. People should learn to respect marriage.

[Geobabe]

Good grief. If their marriage was so perfect, why did he cheat? So what if the mistress pursued him, if a man is truly happy and believes in his marriage, he'll still say no.

I don't think suing the mistress is going to do a damn thing for the wife's self-esteem or happiness. In fact, I think that by taking legal action she's being vindictive, and the more you indulge those negative feelings, the shittier you're going to feel for longer.

I bet that things were not as great as she wants to believe--friends and family can be fooled, because nobody outside the relationship really knows what goes on between two people when no one else is looking. And people can and do fool themselves as to what's really going on.

[learae]

What do you win when you win the lawsuit? Your husband back? Monetary rewards? Am I to assume that these 'mistresses' had something worth suing for?
learae

[Wonko The Sane]

Just out of curiosity, what 12 states have this law? And what constitutes pursuing? I suppose he didn't invite this woman's attention in any manner??? I always thought it took 2 to tango.


I don't think that tangoing was the main problem.

/quickly ducking and evading thrown fruit/

[Arnold Winkelried]

Maybe you can get the court to award you the mistress' breast implants.

If the mistress is being sued, then the husband should be sued also. Have any of these cases been brought to court where the male lover is being sued for breaking up a marriage by pursuing the wife? Or are only women considered to be homewreckers?

[Kiki]

From what I understand, this was a story done on 20/20 or 60 Minutes or one of those types of shows. The wife actually sued the mistress and won a monetary settlement. I'm not sure how much she was awarded though.

I don't think the husband should be let off the hook as easily as he was. He says that she pursued him but he had the choice to take her up on her offer or turn her down. Obviously he made the wrong choice. And like Geobabe said, if they were so happily married, why did he cheat.

So do you think the wife is being spiteful or she just wants compensated for losing her husband?

[Harmonious Discord]

A law like this is a good reason to never marry and just xxx.

[Osip]

WTF?
It does "take two to tango" I ex-spouse should take every fricking thing their spouse has THEN give dump them off on the mistress. I think the Cheater should be crucified. The mistress should get the remains. But, sueing the mistress just seems like a sue-happy money grap tactic.
What next? Someone gonna spill hot coffee in their lap and sue McDonalds?

[handy]

She won about $200,000 won't see any of it [before you sue someone make sure they have money] & its under appeal.

'If their marriage was so perfect, why did he cheat?' That is a misconception of what a marriage is. This new lady was just drooling over him like you wouldn't believe.

[Billdo]

New York not only abolished actions for alienation of affections -- along with the other "heart balm" actions: criminal conversation, seduction and breach of contract to marry -- in 1935. (And by the way, "criminal conversation" is neither criminal nor a conversation, but rather is an archaic description for the act of adultery.)

Not only did New York abolish these claims, it made filing or threatening to file any of these actions a felony, and voided any agreement purporting to settle such a claim. See New York Civil Rights Law Article 8 (http://assembly.state.ny.us/cgi-bin/claws?law=17&art=13).

While making the filing or threat of such an action a felony is a bit over the top, I agree with the basic sentiment. Although these "broken heart" claims may seem on their surface to be useful in compensating people for the disappointment of their failed relationships, to my mind the reality of it is that people would go through the effort and trauma of suing over their breakups would be much better served by simply letting it go. With the complexity of human relationships and the modern understanding of marriage in such things as no fault divorce laws (which New York does not yet really have, by the way), it is preposterous to claim that some vixen came in, stole the husband, and ruined the marriage. In fact, if any wife were to spend the years involved to go after the other woman in court, it would be a good indication to me that the wife's persistence and emotional edge was one factor that broke up the marriage in the first place.

[Manda JO]

Bildo:

Although these "broken heart" claims may seem on their surface to be useful in compensating people for the disappointment of their failed relationships,.

But what id there is m\some monetary loss? For instance, if I were to pay for a huge wedding, and we have a fight and break up the week before, well, that's just life. But what if I were to discover the night before my wedding that my lover was already married, and had never intended to go through with it--had bragged to all his friends how shocked I would be when he didn't show (I am trying to set this up as unambigously as posssible). I can see calling a laywer at that point because it does seem like a contract was made fraudulently. But I have no idea what law you could use.

[Cessandra]

Posted by handy:
'If their marriage was so perfect, why did he cheat?' That is a misconception of what a marriage is. This new lady was just drooling over him like you wouldn't believe.

What is a marriage if it isn't a vow of loyalty? I don't remember any "until some other woman drools all over me do we part" part in the marriage vows. The whole point is that two people COMMIT to eachother.

I'm sorry, if Carl cheated on me, I'd be mad at HIM. Not that I'd let her off completely, especially if she was supposed to be a friend. But HE is the one who promised to love and cherish me for the rest of his life.

[Billdo]

Manda JO asked:
But what id there is m\some monetary loss? For instance, if I were to pay for a huge wedding, and we have a fight and break up the week before, well, that's just life. But what if I were to discover the night before my wedding that my lover was already married, and had never intended to go through with it--had bragged to all his friends how shocked I would be when he didn't show (I am trying to set this up as unambigously as posssible). I can see calling a laywer at that point because it does seem like a contract was made fraudulently. But I have no idea what law you could use.


In that case, where he never had any intent (or even legal ability) to marry you, you would probably have a claim for fraud. He defrauded you into entering into incurring the costs of the wedding, which are probably recoverable. The costs of your emotional distress are probably not recoverable, though he might be subject to punitive damages.

By the way, the same article of New York law does allow an action for recovery of gifts given in contemplation of marriage (the most common example being an engagement ring). The modern New York cases hold that an engagement ring should be returned on the break-up of the engagement regardless of which party might have been responsible for ending it. However, if the "engagement" ring was given by a man who knew he was already married (even if a divorce was promised or pending), the courts have held that it couldn't be a gift in contemplation of marriage (because the man didn't have the legal right to get married again), so the ring remained the property of the woman. (I'm not sure how strong the legal reasoning behind that rule is, but it makes a good deal of sense under a rough, frontier justice view.)

[learae]

I'm still wondering what states have these laws? A friend of mine is in a sticky situation. Her husband is having an affair with a lady in town who is VERY Wealthy. My friend is very upset, partially because if she divorces him, her lifestyle will take a hard blow! No more nice house, and expensive car, etc. To add insult to injury, she can't use adultery as grounds for the divorce, because he's done this before and she forgave him and took him back. So, I just wondered if this was a legal lawsuit in Kansas. learae

[Steve-o]

'If their marriage was so perfect, why did he cheat?' That is a misconception of what a marriage is. This new lady was just drooling over him like you wouldn't believe.


I apparently don't quite get what you are suggesting by this. What is a marriage then? I don’t care how aggressive someone is toward me sexually, I will not cheat on my wife. I have not only made this promise to my wife, but I have made it to myself. I have resolved beforehand that I will never do this, so there is no “evaluating” the situation in the “heat of the moment”. The only way someone could be “made” to cheat is if they didn’t view it as wrong (enough), or they were looking to cheat. Any “heat of the moment” arguments are bull&%$*. The “moment” shouldn’t have gotten that far in the first place if the person’s SO was important enough to them.

OTOH... if she were really hot... ;)

[handy]

" A friend of mine is in a sticky situation..."
If it were but that simple....She would have to prove that the lady he is doing intentionally tried to get her husband. If her husband did it cause HE wanted to, well, sorry but you can't sue her.

[Bricker]

Bill,

Just to take a devil's advocate position for the moment...

Do you also believe that we should abolish "tortious interference with a contract" as a cause of action?

- Rick

[learae]

Handy,
Now, wait a minute....are you trying to tell me that he 'did it', even though he didn't want to. It seems to me that if he didn't 'want to' then physically he would be having some problems. And having sex when you don't want to is.....something akin to rape isn't it?
Personally, the lady?? in question is merely entertaining herself. I don't think she wants my friend's husband at all. So I suppose intentionally taking him from her; isn't relevant here. In fact, I doubt she keeps him long, if she 'keeps' him, for that matter. Is that really part of the issue?
learae

[Otto]

New York not only abolished actions for alienation of affections -- along with the other "heart balm" actions: criminal conversation, seduction and breach of contract to marry -- in 1935.

Wisconsin did as well, in 1971. We called it "breach of promise," though.

[Billdo]

Bricker Asked:
Do you also believe that we should abolish "tortious interference with a contract" as a cause of action?

Actually, the more interesting question is "tortious interference with prospective economic advantage," one of my favorite causes of action.

To explain to the non-lawyers, you can have a legal claim against someone who, without sufficient justification, improperly interferes with a contract you have. For instance, if you have a distribution contract with a supplier, and a competitor who knows about the contract pays off the supplier to breach the contract, you would probably have a claim against the competitor.

Interference with prospective economic advantage is where someone interferes with a situation where there is not contract but an expectation of performace (such as a deal that is just about to go to contract or a supply relationship that is not in a formal contract but has continued for a long time.)

Anyway, I think that tortious interference continues to be proper because it is a claim for economic damages. The "heart balm" actions are only for emotional damages.

Sure a relationship breaking up sucks, and the emotional suffering is real, but there should not be legal recompense for these things, particularly when the actions usually require two people to be complicit in the activities complained of.

[KP]

**AHEM!**

Look, I have NO intention of justifying a cheating spouse, but have we all forgotten she *is* suing her hubby - for divorce? That given the cause of action, in many states, she is likely to recover a significant fraction of his assets?

So, given that, I see nothing wrong with allowing her to take action against other contributing parties. Agreed, it won't do much to make the "wronged party" (real-life relationships are often more complicated than this implies) feel better, but let it at least be an option. This may be one situation where a jury may actually be as close to justice as we can get

I've always been torn about the 'no-fault' divorce. I don't incline towards stigmatizing people, and the former divorce laws (which in some states *required* that one party be morally 'at fault', and often encouraged abandoment and later bigamy) had serious flaws. But as I've watched so many of my friends finish off their starter marriages... I couldn't help but feel a little sad that it's come to this.

of course, the modern vision of romance was a poetic invention of 14th century troubadours (I know, some say 16th, but I'll stand by my choice of century)