Wife Sues Mistress and Wins....

[Alluveal]

I found this one very interesting...and am still deciding what i think.

When Candi discovered that her husband was cheating, she didn't get mad…she got a lawyer.

After finding steamy love letters and racy photos the other woman sent her husband, Candi says she decided to sue the mistress for alienation of affection. She won and was awarded $500,000, but ultimately, she settled for $50,000.

Since most states have no-fault divorce, Candi says she couldn't sue her husband, so she went after the woman who she says actively pursued him.

"I think they first met in a bar out of town and nothing happened, but she chose to send him a Christmas card," Candi says. "He obviously bit, so she kept writing. Initially, she would say things like, 'I know you're married with three children, and we can just be friends, but I really enjoyed meeting you.' Then [the letters] became more graphic. [She said] that she could fly to our town any time, and then described sexual acts she'd like to perform if only they could be together."

Why did Candi decide to take legal action? "At the time, I felt so humiliated and devastated," she says. "It looked like an opportunity for redemption in a way, just to stand up for myself and my family."

Link here

What do you think?

[Garrdor]

This is why I don't take our justice/legal system seriously.

GG America

[Harlowe]

Honestly I think it's pretty ridiculous even if Candi is a stankho.

[Ddrak]

Interesting precedent. Does it mean high school kids can sue for alienation of affection as well?

Dd

[Klast Brell]

I think it's fine.

You sue people to recover damages for injuries they did you. That mistress fucked up the wife's life pretty hard. Married long enough to have 3 kids, and now she is a divorced mom caring for 3 kids. If the mistress had broken the wife's fingers of given her a disfiguring scar, you would have no problem with a lawsuit over that. If there had been a breach of contract you would have no problem with that lawsuit either.

SO why not sue someone for deliberately, and with knowledge of the consequences, ruining your life? And not"I had a bad day" ruining your life. but "I'm a single parent having to care for 3 kids with less money that I had when I was married" fucked up her life.

[Harlowe]

There was no contract between the mistress and wife and the man wasn't forced into it. Whether I personally think it's repulsive or immoral, I believe everyone has the right to put their nether regions on or in whatever age appropriate conscenting hole they want. Besides half the marriages out there end in divorce so your life obviously isn't over afterwards. You shouldn't litigate every challenge, mean thing or shitty thing that happens in your life. That's ridiculous.

If it wasn't this woman, it would have been something or someone else. The guy was going to fuck around eventually or leave.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Surprising that there isn't the opinion present that maybe she should've paid more attention to her Husband and when she learned that he had a mistress maybe confronted him and got them both into some sort of marriage counseling to work out their problems.

[Harlowe]

As outsiders we have no idea what the marriage was like for both parties nor really every avenue they tried. My point is though, that the contract was between them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is based in tort theory, not contract theory. For instance, some guy who takes a baseball bat to your car, you expect to recover damages from him, yet he isn't under contract to you for anything. Or you slip and fall on a wet floor in a grocery store and break your leg... no contract exists there either, yet I bet you'll make a claim against the store's insurance, or sue the store if they dont have any.

Same theory here.

Also, if you wanted to go down the "contract" line, there's a legal theory called "contractual intereference", where a person not party to a contract intentionally fucks with the contractual relationship, causing harm. Those people are civially laible for the harm they cause.

Having said all that, I think most states explicity exclude interference in a marriage contract as an actionable offense. I think there's only two or three states that allow this intheir courts. I bet if you dug deeper, you'd find this happened in SC. There have been several successful legal cases there involving this type of scenario. I seem to recall that the SC legislature talks about eliminating this as an actionable offense everytime it happens, but so far, they haven't done anything.

[Harlowe]

This is a relationship. It's not as clear cut as damage to something you own. Also, the wife didn't "own" the husband. Nor does a husband "own" his wife. People are free to make relatinship choices that hurt others. There is no law against that. Not to mention that the other woman may not have been the cause. It could have been just as equally the wife's fault, the husband's wandering dick or waning interest or effort being put into their relationship by the two of them. The woman could have been just a symptom of the original cause. I think a relationship is far too complicated to litigate against outside influences, just because you can't go after your spouse.

People get dumped and it's seldom just do to some outside influence.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You were arguing from a contract (legal) basis. You've now changed to your opinion of how it all should work in Harlowe's world. Which is fine, but the legal theory certainly exists, as states have had to specifically exclude it as an actionable offense.

And if you don't think a marriage has a serious financial and property rights side to it, which is definitely more than just a simple relationship where you can leave each other and walk away with no obligation (like child support, division of assets, alimony, etc) , then you misunderstand the actual civil "contract" (and it is a contract) between the married partners. Wouldn't you agree that someone who inserts themselves into a contractual relationship with the intent of undermining that relationship, and subsequently causing financial harm to one of the parties to that contractual relationship, should be held accountable for the harm they caused (in whole or in part). Let's say she is determined to be 50% at fault for harming the financial aspects of that contract, shouldn't she be on the hook to make the harmed party whole (at 50% of the total damage)?

[Harlowe]

I never claimed to be arguing from any one point, other than what people are allowed to do in relationships. The contract was one aspect. Also, I never said a person could walk away without financial repercussions, but a person can walk away from the emotional aspect and physical aspect at any time.

The couple themselves should be the only ones that are culpable in this arrangement imo.

[Ddrak]

This is based in tort theory, not contract theory. For instance, some guy who takes a baseball bat to your car, you expect to recover damages from him, yet he isn't under contract to you for anything. Or you slip and fall on a wet floor in a grocery store and break your leg... no contract exists there either, yet I bet you'll make a claim against the store's insurance, or sue the store if they dont have any.

Maybe the first, but definitely not the second. The slip/fall thing is about the store having a duty of care to their customers to provide a safe place for them to shop.

I'd argue the first has definite property value and is illegal in the first place so there's a more clear line there. The whole idea of suing the mistress makes it seem like the legal opinion is the husband had no choice in the matter.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is based in tort theory, not contract theory. For instance, some guy who takes a baseball bat to your car, you expect to recover damages from him, yet he isn't under contract to you for anything. Or you slip and fall on a wet floor in a grocery store and break your leg... no contract exists there either, yet I bet you'll make a claim against the store's insurance, or sue the store if they dont have any.

Maybe the first, but definitely not the second. The slip/fall thing is about the store having a duty of care to their customers to provide a safe place for them to shop.

I'd argue the first has definite property value and is illegal in the first place so there's a more clear line there. The whole idea of suing the mistress makes it seem like the legal opinion is the husband had no choice in the matter.

Dd

Tort law in the US doesn't employ a 100% assignment of fault, but rather a sliding scale of fault. That sliding scale is decided by a jury (or in some cases a judge). During ajudication, the adjudicator (either a jury, judge or arbitrator) decides two things... amount of total damages to the plaintiff, and percentage of fault by all involved parties. Then the amount of damages is multiplied by the percentage fault, and real damages are awarded.

[Ddrak]

Tort law in the US doesn't employ a 100% assignment of fault, but rather a sliding scale of fault. That sliding scale is decided by a jury (or in some cases a judge). During ajudication, the adjudicator (either a jury, judge or arbitrator) decides two things... amount of total damages to the plaintiff, and percentage of fault by all involved parties. Then the amount of damages is multiplied by the percentage fault, and real damages are awarded.

/nod, like most tort law (which tends to be derived from English precedent).

I'd just love to see the actual court documents and the decision, precedent and faults awarded.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Like most civil court cases, this probably never went to trial, and if so, the judge or jury would never have decided the issue. In fact, I think the report stated she "settled" instead of "was awarded damages in the amount of X", which would indicate it never went to trial.

I imagine there would be much pressure on the defendants to settle in a case like this... who would want their more intimate acts part of the public record? That stuff is getting easier to sniff out in background checks. I know as an employer, I wouldn't hire someone like her (or him). She (and he) show a lack of character and a sense of entitlement. Bad combinations in an employee. I do admire the plaintiff though... she found a way to fight back and make a statement that what that woman did was wrong, and those wrong acts have consequences. Good for her.

[Harlowe]

Bring back the scarlet letter I say!

[Embar Angylwrath]

Bring back the scarlet letter I say!

Bring back consequences for your actions I say!

[Harlowe]

Yes, let's make everyone responsible for ruining marriages pay, consequences for all! First the mistresses, then the strippers and the Hooter's Waitresses. Hell the owners that allow married men into their titty bar establishments. Then perhaps the porn industry, the internet, Vegas, Ducks Unlimited, the NFL and shitty in-laws. Oh and the Mall and credit card companies.

The person that should be paying the consequences is the husband with the wandering dick. Whores abound in the world and they always will. Married men aren't forced to fuck them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yes, let's make everyone responsible for ruining marriages pay, consequences for all! First the mistresses, then the strippers and the Hooter's Waitresses. Hell the owners that allow married men into their titty bar establishments. Then perhaps the porn industry, the internet, Vegas, Ducks Unlimited, the NFL and shitty in-laws. Oh and the Mall and credit card companies.

The person that should be paying the consequences is the husband with the wandering dick. Whores abound in the world and they always will. Married men aren't forced to fuck them.

Not everyone, Harlowe, just those that caused substantial and knowing harm to the marriage contract. Don't see why you have an issue with that. Wouldn't you have an issue if someone tried to harm a business relationship you had? This is purely financial. No one is whipping anyone at the stocks. Just making them accountable for the civil aspect of the marriage contract.