Alienation of affection
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
With all due respect, that's crazy. You're just projecting because you don't want to admit your husband would cheat on you. You have to believe somehow it was this other woman's fault, but it wasn't. It was your husband's fault. |
Anonymous
When you sign your marriage license, yes you were signing a contract and it cracks me up that nobody knows that they’re signing a contract. And what’s crazy is people don’t know that the contract rules changed depending on the state you’re living in. Also, there are multiple states that believe you can aid someone in breaking a contract. Also educate yourself on Tortious interference. I’m not giving my opinion on what’s right and wrong. I’m just telling you what the laws. |
Anonymous
You're confusing business contract law with family law. They are two different things and are treated differently, much like property law and intellectual property law. You can squat on physical property and gain rights, but you cannot "squat" on a logo (IP) and gain rights. Both are property, both are handled very differently legally. Courts treat them differently, which is why business contract attorneys do not do family law and vice versa. Also, very few people handle their marriage contracts the way they do business contracts. In business, there is negotiation of the terms, attorneys on both sides are involved, and you cannot make amendments afterwards without it being signed. Very few people do this with their marriage "contract", aka a prenup. Now, some people DO have infidelity clauses in pre-nups. But, if you do not have a legal document stating what happens in the event of infidelity that is signed by both parties, it is not something that you can randomly sue over. You're essentially adding an amendment after the fact. Even if it was verbally agreed upon, that is not the same as a signed contract stating what happens in the event of infidelity. When you don't have a prenup, you default to the state's laws for divorce, most of which have the objective of dissolving marriages with minimum damage. What you are doing is freshman-level logic: Marriage uses the word contract, tortious interference applies to contacts, therefore tortious interference applies to marriage. But that's not how the law works. The law is built on categories, policy goals, and public interest. Family law is intentionally separate from business torts because courts don't want to regulate sex/intimacy, have third parties dragged into divorces, and they want people to be able to leave relationships without lawsuits flying everywhere. Courts treat divorce as dissolving a marriage in the safest way possible for all parties involved, not a business deal to punish people over. |
Anonymous
You forgot to put heart balm into AI when you got your response. It’s a contract. And I understand your little brain thinks every contract has a signature on it. But they don’t. The law views it that you have entered into a contract when you get married. When people laugh about prenuptial agreements because they would never sign a contract because of love, lol. I just have to wonder if they don’t understand they’re entering into a contract when they get married. It’s wild that you don’t know that. |
Anonymous
| This is something limited only to North Carolina and is somewhat controversial. You can read some articles on it. There's basically a NC only cottage industry linked speficially to these types of claims. |
Anonymous
| FAFO |
Anonymous
Hm, not sure what you mean. I never said that nobody signs anything, or that the law doesn't consider you in a contract. Perhaps try reading slower? If you don't have a prenup, the terms of your contract are the state's family law statutes. Most states prohibit lawsuits against spouses for cheating. Unless you have a prenup with an infidelity clause, that is the contract you signed. As for heart balm: I live in a state where heart balm actions are still permitted. My xH attempted to sue me for divorcing him to be with another man. Nothing came of it, and even his own attorney said he needed to calm down on the revenge or else he'd be dropped as a client. We're in agreement that marriage is a contract, and that people should have prenups. I have a prenup. Where we diverge, is that you're attempting to add terms to the contract where they don't exist. If you have a prenup, those are the terms. If you don't have a prenup, the state dictates your terms, and very few states allow you to sue. In those states that allow it, very few attorneys will even see those cases. They just end up getting thrown out by judges who don't want their courtrooms used for a vendetta. Also, tortious interference does not apply to family law. |
Anonymous
DP. Mine did the same thing and while I have no love for the AP, I place blame squarely on XH. |
Anonymous
So we agree. Great. You can, in some states, sue the AP for "alienation of affection". It's the law. Many states, but not most, believe they are culpable. Just because your specific judge didn't find your specific situation to be AoA doesn't mean other situations don't warrant it. It remains to be seen if more or less states adopt alienation of affection laws in the future, but you should know if you live in one of those states. |
Anonymous
Well she would be wrong about that….bwaaahhhhh hhhaaaaa! |
Anonymous
|
She ruined my marriage, so I ruined hers. Why should my marriage take a hit while she continues to lie and cheat with more women’s husbands? I felt like I was doing other women a service by scaring the living sh@t out of her. Plus, it felt good and provided closure. They don’t get to dictate how you will react to them getting involved with your family and spouse. You don’t fk with another person’s family. Period.
You want mutually assured destruction ? You got it, babe. |
Anonymous
Anyone who is an AP is an idiot and they deserve retribution as well if they knew the family or knew they were married. Stop giving scumbags and sluts a pass, we need more adults who are capable of healthy relationships, not less. |
Anonymous
If they knew upfront they were an AP, then they're not a good person, but they're still not in breach of any contracts. Thing is, the sort of low-integrity scum that would cheat, which usually involves more than a bit of lying to one's spouse, probably isn't going to be totally upfront and honest with their potential AP(s). So blaming the AP is still a bit of a dick move. Responsibility for cheating rests with the cheater. Full stop. It's not your spouse's fault for not doing __________. It's not the AP's fault for enabling; you can't enable someone who doesn't choose to cheat. The cheater is the guilty party. |
Anonymous
Not according to the law in these states. |
Anonymous
From a lawyer: “ In order to sue someone, you need what lawyers call a "cause of action" - a legally-recognized reason. The person you're suing must have owed you a duty; they must have breached that duty; and you must have suffered a cognizable - that is, real and measurable - harm as a result. Everyone owes one another a duty of reasonable care, so if someone fails to act with reasonable care and you are injured as a result, in a way that they could or should have been able to foresee, you may be able to sue them for negligence - for neglecting that duty of reasonable care. However, you also have an affirmative responsibility to use reasonable care yourself. If you were injured as a result of your own negligence, then you are not owed recompense by anyone else. In any case, a court in a negligence or other tort case can only award you damages (an award of money to be paid by the defendant) equal to the harm you actually suffered. Suits for merely emotional damages, without any underlying physical injury, are not always per se impossible -- but they usually are. To prevail, you must plead, and prove, that the person you're suing engaged in "extreme and outrageous behavior" -- something that "shocks the conscience" of ordinary persons. Examples from the past have included things like: killing someone else before one's own eyes; engaging in an elaborate ruse to convince one that death was imminent; that sort of thing. Having an extramarital affair is not "extreme and outrageous" -- it is sadly banal. Furthermore, you must also prove that whatever mental health problems you have now were caused directly by the defendant's conduct, and not by anything else. This requires turning over all your mental health records as evidence. The defendant has the right to have you examined by their own mental health professional, to try to prove that your mental problems are not the result of their own conduct, but are a pre-existing condition or caused by something else. In short, they have both a right and a duty to try to prove that you are just plain nuts. Here is the big picture: The courts do not exist to validate feelings or resolve personal acrimony. They are there to resolve conflicts that society cannot tolerate - and they do it far from perfectly. People have this notion that suing someone will be this glorious redemptive process, where their every injury will be avenged and all their feelings validated. This belief is staggeringly wrong. Lawsuits are intensely unpleasant. They force the parties to live through whatever injuries they originally suffered, for months or years. You have to answer tons of difficult questions, over and over again, and if you change your story even a bit, you can be sunk. They rarely go perfectly - the law often produces results that one side or another considers to be unjust, for technical reasons - or just because "justice" is a pretty subjective concept. The other side has every motive, and every right, to attack your honesty, your conduct, and your motives - or, in this case, your previous mental health. And, of course, you need to shell out a fairly large amount of money, most of the time, when suing someone. This is true even if your lawyer is working for a contingent fee, where they don't get paid if they win (which they'd only be willing to do if the person you're suing is independently wealthy, or insured - otherwise, no recovery will be possible even if you do win). And it's certainly true if you lose, and you have to pay the other side's attorney fees, which can be huge. So you really need to think carefully before you embark on any litigation. The right to sue is a critical one in our democracy, but it must be the last resort for solving problems, not the first. Lawsuits are often critical for seeking redress to serious injuries - but are not appropriate responses to marital infidelity. I would urge you to continue in counseling. Blaming others for your marriage's problems is not likely the answer” There’s a lot of big talkers on this thread about how they’d sue everyone involved. But they’d all chicken out when they actually have to hand over all their mental health records and get examined by mental health professionals. Reality is, nobody wins these cases, even in the states that allow them. Most attorneys won’t touch them. It’s a GOOD thing. These laws were based historically on women being property. We don’t want to go back to that. |