Alienation of Affection laws

[AmyNation]

8 states still have these laws on the books, they are regularly used and have recent cases with award in the millions.

Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you - CNN.com


I'm a bit baffled why they havent been totally abolished. It seems ludicrous to me that the law can hold a third party ( and no that party doesnt have to be having an affair with either spouse) responsible for the dissolution of a marriage.

 

[George Costanza]

The next time some married public figure gets caught dilpping his wick outside of the marital couch, take a poll among all of the married women you can find. See how many of them are sympathetic toward the wick dipper.

Hopefully, that answers your question here.

 

[AmyNation]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

 

[George Costanza]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

That aspect of the law I was not aware of. I'll break down and read your link and get back to ya. (Don't you hate it when you actually have to READ a link?)

 

[George Costanza]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

I read the link. As I suspected - I think you are stretching a bit here. Let's not parse words - you may not have to be having a certified affair, but you have to be engaging in some form of sexual hanky-panky. The point is, affair or not, there has to some kind of sexual misconduct going on between the outsider and the married person. And what's an "affair" anyway? To some, an overnighter is an affair.

Your statement implies that there doesn't have to be anything going on between a married person and an outsider, for an alienation of affections suit to be brought, and that simply is not the case.

 

[LAfrique]

8 states still have these laws on the books, they are regularly used and have recent cases with award in the millions.

Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you - CNN.com


I'm a bit baffled why they haven't been totally abolished. It seems ludicrous to me that the law can hold a third party ( and no that party doesn't have to be having an affair with either spouse) responsible for the dissolution of a marriage.

Most crazy thing I ever heard! No one can cause a spouse to be alienated if the unfaithful spouse was not already alienated. Looks like some good excuse for unfaithful spouses to find targets for milking.

 

[AmyNation]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

I read the link. As I suspected - I think you are stretching a bit here. Let's not parse words - you may not have to be having a certified affair, but you have to be engaging in some form of sexual hanky-panky. The point is, affair or not, there has to some kind of sexual misconduct going on between the outsider and the married person. And what's an "affair" anyway? To some, an overnighter is an affair.

Your statement implies that there doesn't have to be anything going on between a married person and an outsider, for an alienation of affections suit to be brought, and that simply is not the case.

"Generally, the suit is brought against a third party who has had a relationship with the plaintiff's spouse, but there are some instances where other persons such as in-laws, marriage counselors or clergy have been sued. "

How to Defend Alienation of Affection Lawsuits | eHow.com

 

[Montrovant]

The laws are ridiculous, but I wonder.....what brought this 2009 article to your attention?

 

[AmyNation]

I saw an interview with someone who was sued by her lovers wife, so I got curious and started googling

 

[HUGGY]

I saw an interview with someone who was sued by her lovers wife, so I got curious and started googling

Did you see the interview first hand...as in a deposition?

 

[George Costanza]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

I read the link. As I suspected - I think you are stretching a bit here. Let's not parse words - you may not have to be having a certified affair, but you have to be engaging in some form of sexual hanky-panky. The point is, affair or not, there has to some kind of sexual misconduct going on between the outsider and the married person. And what's an "affair" anyway? To some, an overnighter is an affair.

Your statement implies that there doesn't have to be anything going on between a married person and an outsider, for an alienation of affections suit to be brought, and that simply is not the case.

"Generally, the suit is brought against a third party who has had a relationship with the plaintiff's spouse, but there are some instances where other persons such as in-laws, marriage counselors or clergy have been sued. "

How to Defend Alienation of Affection Lawsuits | eHow.com

I must have missed that in the OP link. Oh? What? Wasn't in the OP link? Hmmmm . . . .

I should have thought of something like that. I can see how that could happen. Interesting.
California is not an alienation of affections state, thank God!

 

[Cecilie1200]

8 states still have these laws on the books, they are regularly used and have recent cases with award in the millions.

Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you - CNN.com


I'm a bit baffled why they havent been totally abolished. It seems ludicrous to me that the law can hold a third party ( and no that party doesnt have to be having an affair with either spouse) responsible for the dissolution of a marriage.

Why would you be baffled? They're on the books because people want interfering in a marriage to be punishable by law, just as cheating on your spouse is punishable by law (and if you think it's NOT punished regularly, look at the divorce settlements in a case of adultery).

It might seem ludicrous to YOU, but I assure you, it doesn't seem ludicrous to the wronged spouse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ha!

I know, but it's still outrageous! Plus the law is vague enough that you don't have to be having an affair with one spouse to be sued by the other.

I read the link. As I suspected - I think you are stretching a bit here. Let's not parse words - you may not have to be having a certified affair, but you have to be engaging in some form of sexual hanky-panky. The point is, affair or not, there has to some kind of sexual misconduct going on between the outsider and the married person. And what's an "affair" anyway? To some, an overnighter is an affair.

Your statement implies that there doesn't have to be anything going on between a married person and an outsider, for an alienation of affections suit to be brought, and that simply is not the case.

"Generally, the suit is brought against a third party who has had a relationship with the plaintiff's spouse, but there are some instances where other persons such as in-laws, marriage counselors or clergy have been sued. "

How to Defend Alienation of Affection Lawsuits | eHow.com

Yes, because "alienation of affection" isn't necessarily about adultery; in some cases, it's just about meddling and screwing around in someone else's relationship until you kill it.

I have a friend whose wife was of a different race (won't say which; doesn't matter, anyway). She got heavily involved in local groups for that racial community, and the leaders of the group started giving her lots of advice on how her marriage "should" be conducted, to the point where the friend actually came home and found his wife sitting with two of these people, staging an "intervention" to tell him how things were going to work henceforth: how he was going to behave, how their son was going to be raised, the whole nine yards. My friend evicted the "community leaders" with ill grace from his home, and the next week, he came home and found his wife and son gone.

Yes, of course he filed for divorce and custody, but he was also quite justified in suing those people for interfering in his marriage to that extent.

 

[AmyNation]

8 states still have these laws on the books, they are regularly used and have recent cases with award in the millions.

Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you - CNN.com


I'm a bit baffled why they havent been totally abolished. It seems ludicrous to me that the law can hold a third party ( and no that party doesnt have to be having an affair with either spouse) responsible for the dissolution of a marriage.

Why would you be baffled? They're on the books because people want interfering in a marriage to be punishable by law, just as cheating on your spouse is punishable by law (and if you think it's NOT punished regularly, look at the divorce settlements in a case of adultery).

It might seem ludicrous to YOU, but I assure you, it doesn't seem ludicrous to the wronged spouse.

They are antiquated laws from the days when women were still considered the property of their husbands.

If baffling to me, that any 3rd party could be held liable for the end of a marriage, which is in the laws eyes, simply the desolation of a contract between two parties.

You may prefer your government big and in your personal life, but I don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

8 states still have these laws on the books, they are regularly used and have recent cases with award in the millions.

Beware cheaters: Your lover's spouse can sue you - CNN.com


I'm a bit baffled why they havent been totally abolished. It seems ludicrous to me that the law can hold a third party ( and no that party doesnt have to be having an affair with either spouse) responsible for the dissolution of a marriage.

Why would you be baffled? They're on the books because people want interfering in a marriage to be punishable by law, just as cheating on your spouse is punishable by law (and if you think it's NOT punished regularly, look at the divorce settlements in a case of adultery).

It might seem ludicrous to YOU, but I assure you, it doesn't seem ludicrous to the wronged spouse.

They are antiquated laws from the days when women were still considered the property of their husbands.

If baffling to me, that any 3rd party could be held liable for the end of a marriage, which is in the laws eyes, simply the desolation of a contract between two parties.

You may prefer your government big and in your personal life, but I don't.

No, YOU think they're antiquated, because you don't agree with them. Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that you aren't the whole entire frigging world, and that you're actually pretty inconsequential?

One more time for the hard-of-thinking: they're on the books because people want them there, as witness the fact that they are, in fact, USED. Truly antiquated laws are virtually never actually applied.

You can yada, yada about "big government" all you like, but since we both know you define "big government" as "anything I don't personally like", it never works, so why bother?

Sounds to me like you just have a guilty conscience and are afraid his wife's gonna find out about you. Or maybe it's "her husband". Whatever. Since you're not in any danger if you have the basic good manners to butt the hell out of people's marriages, your obvious panic on this subject cuts zero ice with me.

 

[uscitizen]

Hey! Aliens deserve affection too!

 

[AmyNation]

Why would you be baffled? They're on the books because people want interfering in a marriage to be punishable by law, just as cheating on your spouse is punishable by law (and if you think it's NOT punished regularly, look at the divorce settlements in a case of adultery).

It might seem ludicrous to YOU, but I assure you, it doesn't seem ludicrous to the wronged spouse.

They are antiquated laws from the days when women were still considered the property of their husbands.

If baffling to me, that any 3rd party could be held liable for the end of a marriage, which is in the laws eyes, simply the desolation of a contract between two parties.

You may prefer your government big and in your personal life, but I don't.

No, YOU think they're antiquated, because you don't agree with them. Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that you aren't the whole entire frigging world, and that you're actually pretty inconsequential?

One more time for the hard-of-thinking: they're on the books because people want them there, as witness the fact that they are, in fact, USED. Truly antiquated laws are virtually never actually applied.

You can yada, yada about "big government" all you like, but since we both know you define "big government" as "anything I don't personally like", it never works, so why bother?

Sounds to me like you just have a guilty conscience and are afraid his wife's gonna find out about you. Or maybe it's "her husband". Whatever. Since you're not in any danger if you have the basic good manners to butt the hell out of people's marriages, your obvious panic on this subject cuts zero ice with me.

I hate to break this to you, but just because YOU say they aren't antiquated, doesn't make it so. These laws date back to English common law, and were all about men's rights over their wives. The fact that they've recently been amended to give women those same rights is besides the point.

The government is not your marriage counselor, and shouldn't be in the business of punishing someone that you may not even know, because your husband walked. You dont have an agreement with every woman on the planet to keep their hands off your man.