SkinInsite Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) -- The next time a married man or woman glances your way, you might think twice before acting on impulse and frolicking between satin sheets. The scorned spouse could sue you. Yes, you read that right. You, the paramour, can get hit with a lawsuit that could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. They're known as "alienation of affection" suits, when an "outsider" interferes in a marriage. The suits are allowed in seven states: Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. The law allowing such legal action dates back to antiquated times when a wife was considered the property of a husband. A broken-hearted hubby could go after his wife's lover -- not with a gun, but with the law. In modern times, the suits are filed for two reasons: money and revenge. Juries in North Carolina have handed out awards in excess of $1 million on multiple occasions. Lesson in life: if your spouse is going to cheat hope they cheat with a really rich person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Lesson in Life: If you are going to have sex with a man/woman that asks you to take your name off the phone... be worried. if they say because their wife/husband will see your name.. run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Me Like Marriage is a contract that has many legal entanglements and a cheater is a active agent in breaking it. It is of course subject to abuse as any legal liability though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscofan Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 There is always equal blame to share for all 3-parties involved in extra-marital affairs. One of the spouses feels neglected enough in some way to sleep around with a third person who is aware of the marriage...thats blame for all 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 ciscofan...seriously? you think the one cheated on has equal blaim in all cases? Sorry, that sounds like little more than an excuse to cheat to me. "I want more than you're giving me. I don't know how to ask or I don't want to, so I can sleep with somebody else." Please...that's kind of pathetic. If you're maried you made an agreement, a contract if you will. If you don't like it or think you're not getting what was agreed apon, you are obligated to take that up with the parties in the contract. You don't get to say "but now I see a better option you aren't giving me so without informing you I'm going to nulify our agreement...except that often times I will continue to benefit from our agreement for as long as I can get away with it since you don't know I'm not holding my end." If that is the way you look at it, I would hate to do business with you. As for the third person, the agreement has a legal standing. That legal standing is recognized by society. The cheater is going against the laws and standards of society bby refusing to recognize the status of maried. They deserve all the hell that comes their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 There is always equal blame to share for all 3-parties involved in extra-marital affairs. One of the spouses feels neglected enough in some way to sleep around with a third person who is aware of the marriage...thats blame for all 3. Divorce or reach a understanding...cheating is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 ciscofan...seriously? you think the one cheated on has equal blaim in all cases? Sorry, that sounds like little more than an excuse to cheat to me. "I want more than you're giving me. I don't know how to ask or I don't want to, so I can sleep with somebody else." Please...that's kind of pathetic. If you're maried you made an agreement, a contract if you will. If you don't like it or think you're not getting what was agreed apon, you are obligated to take that up with the parties in the contract. You don't get to say "but now I see a better option you aren't giving me so without informing you I'm going to nulify our agreement...except that often times I will continue to benefit from our agreement for as long as I can get away with it since you don't know I'm not holding my end." If that is the way you look at it, I would hate to do business with you. As for the third person, the agreement has a legal standing. That legal standing is recognized by society. The cheater is going against the laws and standards of society bby refusing to recognize the status of maried. They deserve all the hell that comes their way. The Civil agreement is between to two parties who signed the "contract". The Third party is under no such obligation, as they never signed the contract. Maybe the other spouse should fulfill their end an stop withholding affection and wear the french maid costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Sorry but this is ridiculous. The third person did not enter into a contract like the two married parties did. They are the only ones that should be responsible for upholding that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I wish Florida had that law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm really glad to see this type of stuff being created. People who knowingly create relationships with married people are *******s. But if those people are unaware that the person is married, they deserve some protection from being sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 There is always equal blame to share for all 3-parties involved in extra-marital affairs. One of the spouses feels neglected enough in some way to sleep around with a third person who is aware of the marriage...thats blame for all 3. Nonsense. "Feeling neglected" is something dealt with via divorce, counseling, or talking about it. Cheating however is not being true to your word. It's a black mark on your character and evidence of a lack of integrity. It is very obvious betrayal of your family, the people presumably closest to you... why should people less important to you trust you if you are willing to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Sorry but this is ridiculous. The third person did not enter into a contract like the two married parties did. They are the only ones that should be responsible for upholding that contract. It is well settled in American Jurisprudence that if a third party intentionally interferes with a contractual relationship between other parties, that third party may be held liable for their intentional interference with the contractual relationship. The alienation of affection doctrine is somewhat different that the theory above; nevertheless, third parties who never signed a contract can be held liable for intentionally interfering with the contractual relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 There is always equal blame to share for all 3-parties involved in extra-marital affairs. One of the spouses feels neglected enough in some way to sleep around with a third person who is aware of the marriage...thats blame for all 3. There's this new thing out called 'divorce'... It's the correct solution, not cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Sorry but this is ridiculous. The third person did not enter into a contract like the two married parties did. They are the only ones that should be responsible for upholding that contract. If they are liable(responsible) for breach of contract they should get off scot free? Seems odd to penalize the one w/o the other added redskin56 put it well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lydon Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Sorry but this is ridiculous. The third person did not enter into a contract like the two married parties did. They are the only ones that should be responsible for upholding that contract. You don't sign a contract saying you won't trespass either but if you do, you might just get shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 There's this new thing out called 'divorce'... It's the correct solution, not cheating. Well if they make Divorce illegal....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The Civil agreement is between to two parties who signed the "contract". The Third party is under no such obligation, as they never signed the contract.Maybe the other spouse should fulfill their end an stop withholding affection and wear the french maid costume. they may not have signed a contract, but if you relate it to the business world, if an employee of company A develops something, then company B decides they want it so they slip money under the table to the employee of A, does B not get a fine or some other punishment for their tactics? and i swear ive heard of cases where that happened and company A sued company B for corporate espionage or something of the sort. so how is that different. company B didnt sign any contract but they willfully aided in the breaking of the contract between company A and the employee. so while they didnt sign a contract, they knew what they were doing was causing a legal contract to be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The Civil agreement is between to two parties who signed the "contract". The Third party is under no such obligation, as they never signed the contract. It still makes you an ******* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The third party in this is intentially ignoring a legal status bestowed by the state. Their treatment of the status intentially harms those to whom society has granted the status of "maried." Yes, they should be held liable. Actually, this is one of times where law follows justice. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Nice! I'll just have my wife hook up with a rich dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Nice! I'll just have my wife hook up with a rich dude! Caveat Emptor :cool2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm sure this could easily be defended against by the 3rd party on the grounds of ignorance. "I was never told he/she was married and he/she never wore a wedding ring with me." "He/she told me he/she was separated from their SO." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 ...how often does ignorance of a law make you immune? ...and there are probably plenty of times with the rich evidence gathered from stupid people to make that kind of claim difficult. You think Tiger's women could make that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 ...how often does ignorance of a law make you immune? True nuff:D;) Try telling the judge you thought that minor was legal,it is your responsibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 It is well settled in American Jurisprudence that if a third party intentionally interferes with a contractual relationship between other parties, that third party may be held liable for their intentional interference with the contractual relationship. The alienation of affection doctrine is somewhat different that the theory above; nevertheless, third parties who never signed a contract can be held liable for intentionally interfering with the contractual relationship. If the third party could interfere with a contract outside of the control of the other two parties, that is perfectly acceptable but that is not the case when people cheat. One of the two parties involved in the contract must consent in order for the breach of contract to occur so I think the responsibility falls to the people in the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.