Woman sues husband's mistress, gets $10m

**kingcap72** · March 23rd, 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by ConstanceSpry

Maybe she needs the money in order to move on and focus on her own future. She is 62, at that age she's out of luck as far as starting a new or more lucrative career, cause no one would hire her even if she was qualified. But I do think she should have gone after the husband for spousal support instead of going after the other woman.

If that were the case, then she should've just sued her husband instead of the mistress. Because the husband is the one who blew up the marriage. By going after the mistress she's making it clear that it's just revenge.

**ConstanceSpry** · March 23rd, 2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by kingcap72

If that were the case, then she should've just sued her husband instead of the mistress. Because the husband is the one who blew up the marriage. By going after the mistress she's making it clear that it's just revenge.

Yes, I agree she wants revenge as well as the money, but I am not familiar with the law and maybe you can only sue the other man or woman for alienation of affection, not the cheating spouse.

**kingcap72** · March 23rd, 2010, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by ConstanceSpry

Yes, I agree she wants revenge as well as the money, but I am not familiar with the law and maybe you can only sue the other man or woman for alienation of affection, not the cheating spouse.

Good point. But if that's the case, the law makes even less sense. Because it takes the responsibility off of the spouse who cheated.

**ConstanceSpry** · March 23rd, 2010, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by kingcap72

Good point. But if that's the case, the law makes even less sense. Because it takes the responsibility off of the spouse who cheated.

Yes, I agree it's not fair, the husband is the one who broke his vows and she should go after him, if possible.

**Sundance** · March 24th, 2010, 10:59 AM

This shouldn't even be an option. Nobody can "steal" your spouse.

**Mel1973** · March 24th, 2010, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by buttmunch

Mel, are you saying money really can buy happiness?

it may not buy it outright, but it puts you a little closer in the ballpark. money isn't going to solve everything but the woman gets the satisfaction of a judge saying "you are right, this woman shouldn't have done this".

**sluce** · March 24th, 2010, 11:53 AM

Sorry - but money does buy happiness. I am a lot happier now than I was when I was a broke student. Not having to worry about money allows me to enjoy other parts of life a great deal more. That said, I do not believe she should be allowed to sue the other woman juts because her husband dumped her.

**MontanaMama** · March 24th, 2010, 12:19 PM

Let's look at this from another point of view....You have a business and in your business you have a contract with your best client. The contract pretty clearly states who's obligation it is to do certain things - provide product, shipping, cost, how long the relationship will last, etc. A new business comes into your community and tries to solicit your client's business. They offer all sorts of cut prices and other perks to entice your client to break the contract. Your client tells the competitor that they have a perfectly fine contract with you, but the competitor just keeps negotiating and offering more and more perks. Your client does break the client and goes into business with your competitor. You still have your contract and you were perfectly able to continue to perform your duties under the contract. You're darn tootin' that you have a cause of action against your client for breaching the contract AND you have a cause of action against the competitor for intentionally interfering with a business relationship (and a few other causes of action).

Now if the wife is you, the ex-husband is the client and the mistress/new wife/student is the competitor, the case makes some sense. If the state legislature has reviewed the law and hasn't seen fit to change it, they must think it has some value for their state.

**sputnik** · March 24th, 2010, 12:30 PM

that's ridiculous. a marriage is a contract but it's not a business contract. it's a partnership where either party is free to leave at any time and break the contract, and one where the only ones who have any say in the matter or can be held responsible for something going wrong are the two people involved. in businesses, contracts have a time limit to them.
if we follow your example, one thing you forgot to mention is that business contracts have durations. you only have to stay with the company for x amount of years. so do you think it would make sense to have marriage contracts where partners have to be faithful for 3 years and after that they can fuck whoever they want? no. that would be ridiculous.

If the state legislature has reviewed the law and hasn't seen fit to change it, they must think it has some value for their state.

this is north carolina.
also, there are loads of retarded laws still on the books. would you say the same applies to these:

California:

In Los Angeles, It is not legal to bathe two babies at the same time in the same tub.
In Riverside, Kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.

Connecticut:
No hanky panky allowed in Connecticut.. A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. It is illegal for unmarried couples to commit lewd acts and live together

Illinois:

A state law requires that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
In Zion, It is illegal for anyone to give cats, dogs, or other domesticated animals a lighted cigar.

Nebraska:

It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

Nevada:

In Reno, It is unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or maintain any marathon dancing or marathon walking Source: Code 1966, § 11.12.130

Oklahoma:
It Is Illegal To Have A sleeping Donkey In Your Bathtub After 7pm

**cmmdee** · March 24th, 2010, 12:43 PM

Sorry but comparing marriage to a business contract is ludicrous, unless we're talking about Tom Cruise and his Hired Robot.

Originally Posted by MontanaMama

Your client tells the competitor that they have a perfectly fine contract with you, but the competitor just keeps negotiating and offering more and more perks.

Once again, it was the "client" who broke "the contract." Nobody MADE him. It was HIS choice. So HE should suffer any penalties.

And yes, money has bought me happiness in the way of some bitchin shoes or a new dress but comparing that to suing a mistress for alienating affections (so silly, hello, if anyone alienated affections it'd be the husband--he was married to the missus, not the mistress) if so off base. Apples, oranges and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by sputnik

that's ridiculous. a marriage is a contract but it's not a business contract. it's a partnership where either party is free to leave at any time and break the contract, and one where the only ones who have any say in the matter or can be held responsible for something going wrong are the two people involved.

Stop talking all that sense, Sput.

I personally love the 'oral sex is illegal' laws.

**MontanaMama** · March 24th, 2010, 12:54 PM

I was simply making a comparison where legal rights exist and are enforced. In both instances a client/business partner or spouse is free to walk away, and there are consequences to that in either instance. And yes, 3rd parties can be held liable for interferring in business deals - and apparently in some states, marriages.

Marriages are absolutely comparable to business contracts. Why do you think alimony exists? Why do you think it's so expensive to get divorced to sort out who owns what and gets what? Why pre and post nuptial agreements exist?

**MohandasKGanja** · March 24th, 2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by sputnik

that's ridiculous. a marriage is a contract but it's not a business contract. it's a partnership where either party is free to leave at any time and break the contract, and one where the only ones who have any say in the matter or can be held responsible for something going wrong are the two people involved. in businesses, contracts have a time limit to them.
if we follow your example, one thing you forgot to mention is that business contracts have durations. you only have to stay with the company for x amount of years. so do you think it would make sense to have marriage contracts where partners have to be faithful for 3 years and after that they can fuck whoever they want? no. that would be ridiculous.

There are a number of ways that marriage resembles a business contract. For example, just like in a business partnerships, any debts that either of you accrue during that period, are obligations to both of you, even after a separation or divorce. You have division of assets after the dissolution of the marriage, just like in the dissolution of a business partnership. There are business contracts that are permanent -- such as indefinite warranties, pensions, etc.

Originally Posted by cmmdee

Once again, it was the "client" who broke "the contract." Nobody MADE him. It was HIS choice. So HE should suffer any penalties.

There is a legal tort called "tortious interference" or "inducing breach of contract". Even if you aren't covered by the contract, you can be subject to a civil judgment for inducing someone else to break it.

**kingcap72** · March 24th, 2010, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by cmmdee

Once again, it was the "client" who broke "the contract." Nobody MADE him. It was HIS choice. So HE should suffer any penalties.

Exactly. You can't blame a third party when your spouse cheats on you. Your spouse is the one who made the commitment to you, not the third party. Even if the third party is your best friend or a relative, the greater betrayal is from the cheating spouse because they broke their vows.

Because if the cheating spouse really loved and respected their partner, and the relationship was healthy & solid, they would never cheat to begin with. Trying to hold someone else responsible for a spouse's adultery is waste of energy.

**MontanaMama** · March 24th, 2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by kingcap72

Exactly. You can't blame a third party when your spouse cheats on you. Your spouse is the one who made the commitment to you, not the third party. Even if the third party is your best friend or a relative, the greater betrayal is from the cheating spouse because they broke their vows.

Because if the cheating spouse really loved and respected their partner, and the relationship was healthy & solid, they would never cheat to begin with. Trying to hold someone else responsible for a spouse's adultery is waste of energy.

Unless it nets you $10 mil.

I tend to agree that it's too easy to blame the 3d party instead of blaming the cheater. But, in this case, she found an avenue to vent her anger, and it worked. There are probably significant facts that we don't know - $10 million would tend to support that.

**MohandasKGanja** · March 24th, 2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by kingcap72

Because if the cheating spouse really loved and respected their partner, and the relationship was healthy & solid, they would never cheat to begin with. Trying to hold someone else responsible for a spouse's adultery is waste of energy.

A multi-million dollar award disproves the idea that it isn't worth the energy.

People who really love their spouses screw up and cheat all the time. That's why so many of them come back and grovel. And why so many of those marriages actually come back from the brink.