https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so-sue-me/201408/the-high-cost-having-affair
Yup.
True.
I wasn't familiar with that story. There is something to it and that is a very common situation, even with less affluent couples.
In this day and age, I'm pretty sure an "I love you" text would suffice.
Eh, retribution, I guess.
It was a moral question of "should you be able to?"
Where I am down here, the whole country is like your state as regards no fault ... the only people upset by it was the lawyers lol
They can in North Carolina. It's called alienation of affection.
Yes, that's what my links shows. I was more wondering if people had an opinion of whether it should be allowed to happen or not.
I don't see the good in it.
Me neither, though some of the others have made good points here, too. Thanks for weighing in.
Old School,
while you present THE part of the argument that causes a problem, VERY WELL, I think I could still give specifics about this issue that make it a separate matter and actually there is a clear enough distinction between tortious interference, specifically, malicious interference and a third party insult to a two-party contract. If a third member is the cause in some way (kind of like the "attractive nuisance" idea) of a contract breaking faith, that 3rd party may be accountable for damage. I think. ? Obviousy the husband was attracted to HER, the mistress, the cause of the pending divorce so there is no concern over winning an argument as to whether the husband cared for the wife or not. What is patently obvious, or SHOULD be, is that the husband is attracted enough to another woman, that he is breaking faith with a life-long contract.
This has nothing to do with breach of affection. This is not a wife suing for anything to do with the love part, therefore, I see that argument to not really hold weight here.
The suit will hold because as an example: Joe and Sally Blow were married. They met and both had Bill and Hillary type futures. Brilliant careers awaited the both of them. (bear with me) Joe and Sally agreed that she would stay home, raise kids and keep his private life calm and relaxed and inviting with great food, beautiful décor, clean house etc., while Joe got his start on the road to fame and glory. Sally busts her butt and does at least as much as Joe, doing the social roster for him, making their kid's lives happy and thriving and making sure hubby is happy and able to accomplish his many successes. She is the power behind the throne person.
Now there is much consternation because real life happens, Joe Blow finds a much younger chippy and Sally is left out in the cold. Joe wants to take the low road and pay Sally as little as possible instead of compensating her for what she is worth. He has the connections and power to make his life 20 times better than his prior life with Sally because he has made it by standing on her neck while she would have to start from scratch career-wise at this point in her life.
Now Sally must contend with what the courts deem "fair". She can get screwed. She may not, but she doesn't have Joe's money to get the best lawyers money can buy just yet.
Does she retort with a counter- suit against his girlfriend for leverage? Is this valid? So, whilst suing the husband in the divorce for just and compensatory fair monies allotted, should she also go after a third- party, hubby's mistress, who had no business entering into a carnal affair and breaking up a household; simply because she wanted the husband, the breadwinner, for herself?
Does she have to pay for knowingly and recklessly helping to cause this situation? The wife has taped phone calls and letters as further proof.
They signed a contract. This is not about love. This is about that contract.
At least that is how I would present the argument PRO suing that bitch. Bitch better have MY money.
What?
