https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so-sue-me/201408/the-high-cost-having-affair
I would say no because the person(s) 'outside' the marriage has/have no 'contract' with either party who are in the marriage.
No.
I personally think no, the problem originated with the married couple. Suck it up and try again, lol. {Then again, maybe not!}.
I personally say no. Any promise was made by the two individuals who were married. The other individual never ccommitted to the relationship. The married individual who made the commitment.
I think if it costs them emotional and financial trauma... Yus
I am sure a lot of money hungry lawyers would love it if more and more people had a go at doing so..
I'd rather sue my spouse, if at all. It wouldn't cause financial stress IF one chooses to stay with the cheating spouse.
No. But IF anyone were getting sued it should be the spouse. They made the decision or rather, fell into temptation. Which anyone can do!
Many cases have been made PRO that idea. I do think there is merit in it. I am reminded of the dark side of that issue. The Betty Broderick story. That witch did get the shaft from her husband. She worked and supported him through law school. She ran his private life for him so he could make money for them. She was an excellent mother and wife, and then she was not.
She became a shrew. A bossy witch who constantly nagged him day and night supposedly. I'm sure it is true. Anyway, he got sick of it basically and got a mistress. He wanted a divorce and SHE LOST IT. Now she would have been fine financially, but it was not fair according to her and it was not enough. He was rich and powerful and she was not. So, she lost money and her social calendar was not as busy.
Instead of dealing with the losses and moving on, she became so disruptive and criminal in her attacks against him that she was ordered to stay away. She crept in his house and shot him and his new wife to death in their beds.
I am telling you all this because she gained TONS of sympathy because of "what she supposedly endured and suffered" that drove her to this act.
It showcased the idea that women who are cheated on have rights that are not addressed simply by a divorce.
It also made a bad showing because she was NUTS. But she did make some very salient points.
You marry, you have a contract and if you can prove some woman came into your life to deliberately mess with your happy home so she could be the beneficiary OF your life, I think she needs to pay for this discretion. It needs to be proven. There must be good evidence.
On the one hand the new wife has to deal with the baggage left from the first marriage and that can be punishment enough. But if you are a spouse who put your life into setting your husband up so he could make you both happy and he renigs on that promise, he needs to pay for it.
AND if the woman involved deliberately and knowingly encouraged him to leave his wife for her, she needs to be responsible as well.
Unfortunately, I think this idea is badly adapted from other parts of the law canon and, if applied strictly, would be fiendishly difficult, bordering on impossible, to prove.
The phrase "malicious interference" in alienation of affection laws sounds a lot like the concept of tortious interference. Say, for example, you quit your job. When you apply to other jobs and your potential new employer calls your previous employer for a reference, your ex-boss calls you a drunk, a thief, and a cheat. Assuming that's not true, your ex-boss' behavior constitutes tortious interference (i.e. you can sue for damages) with your job search.
But the two main criteria for alienation of affection cases ( 1 - Love existed between a couple; 2 - The third party maliciously interfered with the relationship) seem nearly impossible to establish. Consider the following hypothetical exchange in court:
Lawyer: Mr. Jones, at the time you started your affair with Ms. Floozy, were you in love with your wife Mrs. Jones?
Mr. Jones: No, I wasn't.
How is the lawyer going to prove that Mr. Jones really was in love with his wife? Similarly:
Lawyer: Ms. Floozy, did you deliberately start an affair with Mr. Jones to break up his marriage with Mrs. Jones?
Ms. Floozy: No, when our eyes met across the room, it was love at first sight. I couldn't help myself.
Again, how is any lawyer going to prove an affair was initiated for the purpose of messing with the jilted spouse, instead of just being the natural outcome of human mating drives?
The link in the question indicates only six US states allow for alienation of affection lawsuits, and I suspect the only reason those states haven't eliminated such cases is because they happen infrequently.
Why not just sue the spouse?
In the US you can sue anyone, anytime and for any reason. So yes, you can sue the person that your spouse "cheated" with, So much the better if you can demonstrate specific loss due to that tryst (say you received a little incurable and terminal "gift" because of that "contact" or your personal life savings (and somehow legally excluded from the fruits of the marriage) somehow went to the interloper.
But the case is very likely to be thrown out of court due to a lack of merit and even f not you probably have little chance of gaining anything. You will also likely incur substantial additional losses, assuming that you already sued your spouse for that transgression in a divorce action (the various attorneys generally take 1/3 to 1/2 of your assets in divorce actions, or so I'm told by a lawyer I know that practices "family" law). Remember, you will likely have to retain legal council to represent you in court with a rather poor chance of prevailing and the person that you do sue will probably be "judgement-proof".
Yes. Each state here has different laws, but in Arizona, where I am, it's considered a no-fault state with divorces. In other words, the court doesn't care why the marriage is ending and it does no good to air dirty laundry. In other states, this kind of thing is legal, and that's exactly what happens.
lol I agree. I don't necessarily hold the "other wo/man" in high regard, especially if they knew what they were doing, but I also agree that the contract/ promise/ vow wasn't theirs to break.
Yes, that is a tough one. If you're looking at a happily married couple when the seducer steps in and draws away a party, I could see that. I think that's part of the criteria for making this lawsuit stick.
It can cause financial stress to stay with a cheating spouse. You're held liable for your spouse's financial misdeeds. So, if your spouse dumps all their money on the other person or racks up bills to do things for the other person, you're 50% responsible for those expenses.
I'll take that as a "No."
