Man ordered to pay $8.8 million after cheating with another man's wife

[Endus]

To me, it sounds like he is being sued because she didn't say no.

Not really. He knew she was married, and not only did he try and pursue a relationship with her, he actively tried to break up her marriage.

Like I said; in cases where she'd approached him, or brought up her unhappiness and desire for a way out, alienation of affection wouldn't work as a tort. It HAS to demonstrate that she was in a loving marriage and that it's the action of the accused that destroyed that marriage. The cheating is a part of that, but it isn't a necessary part; it's evidence towards the accusation, but isn't itself what the tort is about.

I don't use this word often at all. But I will dub this, the cuck law.

FWIW, traditionally, the charge was largely used by women to sue other women (or men, for that matter) who'd lured away their husbands.

[Sting]

Stupid man costume donated 5$ and says:

[araine]

sounds like what ISIS and the talibans would do, gotta be nice to have those values christians in office.

[Kathandira]

Not really. He knew she was married, and not only did he try and pursue a relationship with her, he actively tried to break up her marriage.

Like I said; in cases where she'd approached him, or brought up her unhappiness and desire for a way out, alienation of affection wouldn't work as a tort. It HAS to demonstrate that she was in a loving marriage and that it's the action of the accused that destroyed that marriage. The cheating is a part of that, but it isn't a necessary part; it's evidence towards the accusation, but isn't itself what the tort is about.



FWIW, traditionally, the charge was largely used by women to sue other women (or men, for that matter) who'd lured away their husbands.

I get that it is the law, and the law is the law, and this case fits the criteria based on said law. But it still seems so strange to me that the other man gets sued, when all the power was in the wife's hands. She simply needed to say, "Sorry, i'm married, and i'll be talking to my husband about this. Please don't contact me again." But she didn't.

The 'other man' must have had some serious game, or she was never as committed as it seemed, or she was already considering leaving her husband. All of which, to me, looks like she had all the power to either end it, or proceed with it.

But, it isn't for me to understand. I'm just glad I got a run down on which states this law exists in. Not that i'm unfaithful, I just have no plans on moving to, and supporting a state with such laws.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I get that it is the law, and the law is the law, and this case fits the criteria based on said law. But it still seems so strange to me that the other man gets sued, when all the power was in the wife's hands. She simply needed to say, "Sorry, i'm married, and i'll be talking to my husband about this. Please don't contact me again." But she didn't.

She very well may have said that at one point. The man is in trouble because he knowingly went out of his way to ruin a marriage. I suppose this law could be used even if she didn't cheat; if the man instead of wooing, tried to ruin their marriage by lying or what have you to get the woman to leave her husband.

[Endus]

She very well may have said that at one point. The man is in trouble because he knowingly went out of his way to ruin a marriage. I suppose this law could be used even if she didn't cheat; if the man instead of wooing, tried to ruin their marriage by lying or what have you to get the woman to leave her husband.

Like I said earlier, if you wife has a best friend who decides they hate you, and does everything she can to slowly seed doubt and unhappiness into her friend's marriage to you, until she finally convinces her friend to leave you, that's alienation of affection. Cheating is evidence towards it, but not a requirement of the tort.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Alienation of affection law isn't gendered, at all.

The reason the wife wasn't targeted with these specific torts is because she didn't seek this out; the other man pursued her and worked to undermine the marriage.

It doesn't mean she doesn't face penalties of her own, it's just that those will come out in divorce proceedings rather than this kind of tort. Infidelity is one of the few nearly automatic demonstrations of fault in a divorce.

Yeah that's my moral beef with this law - IMO you shouldn't be able to hold a 3rd party responsible for your own marriage.

Morally, there is nothing wrong with undermining a marriage unless you signed a document stating that you won't (IE the people actually in the marriage).

[stevenho]

Good.
Don't fck other peoples wives.

[kail]

Yeaaa...if the sex was consensual then there are two equal parties at fault, yet only one of them is getting the shit end. Doesn't matter what the third guy did to woo, she didn't say no. If she did say no, then harassment charges or worse would be justifiable.

In the end, the marriage was weak and the affair is the proof.

[korijenkins]

don't get married.

This is the attitude everyone should have. No reason to.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean, cheating sucks, but we should probably get rid of draconian theocratic laws.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yeah that's my moral beef with this law - IMO you shouldn't be able to hold a 3rd party responsible for your own marriage.

Morally, there is nothing wrong with undermining a marriage unless you signed a document stating that you won't (IE the people actually in the marriage).

What if, instead of seducing her, the only thing he did was set up smear campaign against the husband? Photoshopped some pictures of him with other women, and some texts and that caused the eventual divorce. How is that okay? Thats essentially, at the very base, what happened. He ruined a marriage.

AGAIN, what he did was legally and morally wrong. He is a shitbag who deserves this.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, cheating sucks, but we should probably get rid of draconian theocratic laws.

Where in the law does it state anything about religion?

[melodramocracy]

"It takes two to tango" holds no water. His wife consented to adultery, and bears 100% of the responsibility for the infidelity itself (though certainly not for the reasons behind it).

Hopefully this gets appealed and dropped.

[mitre27]

should have punished the wife too

Should have only punished the wife, she's the one stepping out of her marriage.

[melodramocracy]

Why would anyone get married ? Why, why, why ?

Seriously, explain this to me. You risk 50% of your net worth on basically a coin flip - 50% divorce rate - and you don't get anything compared to just not getting married.

In some cases, tax reasons. Also, guardianship in health related cases. Outside of that, it's entirely social construct.

[Surfd]

This marriage ended up gaining him 8 million dollars though. Your response seems odd for this incident.

I am sure that money is really, truly the compensation he needs for the emotional shithole that his life will become now that he is in the middle of a failed marriage and probably looking at a nasty divorce. Yay, his life is going to be a wreck for years to come, but I am sure that all that money will be a great emotional comfort.

Sometime, money just isn't worth it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm confused why people keep saying shit like this when the marriage is the reason the guy who was cheated on got a fucking pay day.

Way to totally miss the point. People do not get married in the hope that one day your chosen life partner will fuck you over so you can get a paycheck.

[NoiseTank13]

She looks like trouble, a "thot" is what the younglings would call her. Never marry someone way hotter than you.

Sounds like North Carolina still has 200 year old laws on the books, a lot of people don't realize that laws vary from state to state.

Kelsey Grammar?

[Queen of Hamsters]

I foresee that the MGTOW-movement got a few more followers on this day.

Oh well, I've always said that the "the other man" or "the other woman" should be held responsible if they know that the person they're fooling around with, is married. Otherwise? Not so much, the blame should be on the married person doing the cheating in that case.

[Jonnusthegreat]

What if, instead of seducing her, the only thing he did was set up smear campaign against the husband? Photoshopped some pictures of him with other women, and some texts and that caused the eventual divorce. How is that okay? Thats essentially, at the very base, what happened. He ruined a marriage.

AGAIN, what he did was legally and morally wrong. He is a shitbag who deserves this.

- - - Updated - - -



Where in the law does it state anything about religion?

Well that would be defamation or libel, which are crimes I can stand behind. That is nothing like what he did because he did not lie or cheat his way into this man's wife's heart - he earned it.

- - - Updated - - -

People who cheat are total scum, no respect for them personally.

I respect your opinion, but she was just following her heart. Would you prefer she live in a loveless marriage until it is legally acceptable to divorce?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Well that would be defamation or libel, which are crimes I can stand behind. That is nothing like what he did because he did not lie or cheat his way into this man's wife's heart - he earned it.

He "earned" (whatever that really means) the right to mess with a marriage? How can someone possibly condone that?

- - - Updated - - -

I respect your opinion, but she was just following her heart. Would you prefer she live in a loveless marriage until it is legally acceptable to divorce?

Nowhere did it say they had a loveless marriage.

In the US, where this happened, you can divorce for basically any reason nowadays. So not really an excuse.