Dude wins over $750k in "Alienation of Affection" lawsuit

[lawrocket 3]

I thought about this because of a recent court decision http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFkg05PN361reUpYAF9hGHIWeiXw

A plumber in Mississippi sued a real estate millionaire for stealing his wife based upon an old "alienation of affection" law still on the books - 6 more states still have one! The plumber received over $750k for it.

The law is pretty archaic, reflecting the idea that a wife was "stolen." The same way property gets stolen.

This is reminiscent of the "infamous crime against nature" - which was the all inclusive term for gay sex, anal, oral, bestiality, etc., that really didn't start getting banned until the 1960's.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[leewilcox 0]

How much of that would go for legal fees? What would be the net to the plumber?

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion" - Democritus

[Esquilax 0]

The law might be archaic, but what legislator wants to be the guy who repeals it? In the bible belt, that'd mean no reelection for you...

Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2.

[Esquilax 0]

Quote

How much of that would go for legal fees? What would be the net to the plumber?

Attorneys typically get 1/3.

Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Attorneys typically get 1/3.

Perhaps up to 40% because it is a trial award.

The plumber would likely see between $450k and $500k.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The law is pretty archaic, reflecting the idea that a wife was "stolen." The same way property gets stolen.

Agreed - but let's all admit something about human nature, and about ourselves. If our spouse/SO had an affair with someone, who among us would not only feel betrayed by their spouse/SO, but also feel greivously wronged by the paramour? The term "home wrecker" comes to mind.

[kelpdiver 2]

Mississippi is one of only seven states that still allows lawsuits by people who claim someone stole their wife or husband. The others are Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

Interesting mix of states.

If he choose to contest it, it doesn't seem like it would survive scrutiny.

[ryoder 1,384]

I assume that since the plumber was married to her when she had the baby, he is legally the father and obligated to pay to support the kid even though everyone knows it isn't his. I don't blame him for suing.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Esquilax 0]

Quote

I assume that since the plumber was married to her when she had the baby, he is legally the father and obligated to pay to support the kid even though everyone knows it isn't his...

Not exactly. It varies from state to state.

Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Is "criminal conversation" still on the books? I know they touched on it in bar review...

I say good for the plumber. I don't see it as a property thing. I see it as a "some dude fucked my life up by wrecking my marriage, that shouldn't be OK" thing.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I assume that since the plumber was married to her when she had the baby, he is legally the father and obligated to pay to support the kid even though everyone knows it isn't his...

Not exactly. It varies from state to state.

OK, I looked it up. In Mississippi the marital presumption of paternity is rebuttable, meaning it can be challenged in court. So the plumber can file a lawsuit in court seeking to "disestablish" his presumed paternity, and, if he chooses to go the next step, to "establish" the paramour's paternity. The court would then order the parties to submit to genetic testing, and then conduct a non-jury trial in which it would consider the results of the genetic testing, along with any other admissible evidence, in making its ruling.

BTW, a few states still hang on to the legal fiction of keeping the marital presumption of paternity conclusive and irrebuttable, but they are increasingly in the minority. The modern trend is the rebuttable presumption.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Is "criminal conversation" still on the books? I know they touched on it in bar review...

I say good for the plumber. I don't see it as a property thing. I see it as a "some dude fucked my life up by wrecking my marriage, that shouldn't be OK" thing.

Criminal conversation is similar to alienation of affection, but not the same. CC requires adulterous sexual relations to have occurred, but does not necessarily require breakup of the marriage. AA, on the other hand, does not require sexual relations to occur; merely the "offender's" successful inducement of the wife to leave the marriage. Generally, the states that still recognize CC are pretty much the same as those that still recognize AA.

Incidentally, despite its name, criminal conversation is not a criminal offense; it is strictly a civil tort, allowing a cuckolded husband to civilly sue the paramour for having sex with his wife.

[lawrocket 3]

chile: As a lawyer (a ROOKIE LAWYER, but a lawyer) what do you think of this in temrs of duty. What the hell duty should this guy have to the husband? The paramour didn't wrong the hubby - the WIFE wronged the hubby.

The wife, not the paramour, should take the hit, shouldn't she? She's the one who lacked fidelity to her husband.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

OK, I looked it up. In Mississippi the marital presumption of paternity is rebuttable, meaning it can be challenged in court.

What't the statute of limitations? In Cali, the SOL is two years from birth.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, I looked it up. In Mississippi the marital presumption of paternity is rebuttable, meaning it can be challenged in court.

What't the statute of limitations? In Cali, the SOL is two years from birth.

Looks like it's until child's 18th birthday.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The paramour didn't wrong the hubby - the WIFE wronged the hubby.

Of course the W wronged the H. But if the paramour knew she was married, then he wronged the H, too. Thus my allusion to the term "home wrecker" - it's in our common parlance for a reason.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The paramour didn't wrong the hubby - the WIFE wronged the hubby.

Of course the W wronged the H. But if the paramour knew she was married, then he wronged the H, too. Thus my allusion to the term "home wrecker" - it's in our common parlance for a reason.

But he didn't make an oath of fidelity to the other man. He owes the other man nothing. (otoh, he did owe his own wife, but that's aside from this litigation)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

I assume that since the plumber was married to her when she had the baby, he is legally the father and obligated to pay to support the kid even though everyone knows it isn't his...

Not exactly. It varies from state to state.

In Florida, when someone tries to establish paternity for the purpose of support, you have one year to contest it with DNA evidence.

Many of the women state, under oath, that there was no other possible father. However, they are never prosecuted for perjury or attempted fraud either, even though we are talking about 10's of thousands of dollars. (It is kind of a career path in Florida)

[Esquilax 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I assume that since the plumber was married to her when she had the baby, he is legally the father and obligated to pay to support the kid even though everyone knows it isn't his...

Not exactly. It varies from state to state.

In Florida, when someone tries to establish paternity for the purpose of support, you have one year to contest it with DNA evidence.

Many of the women state, under oath, that there was no other possible father. However, they are never prosecuted for perjury or attempted fraud either, even though we are talking about 10's of thousands of dollars. (It is kind of a career path in Florida)

Then the non-daddy-spouse should get an attorney when he hears that some other dude possibly knocked his wife up. That attorney should then insist on DNA tests...

Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Is "criminal conversation" still on the books? I know they touched on it in bar review...

I say good for the plumber. I don't see it as a property thing. I see it as a "some dude fucked my life up by wrecking my marriage, that shouldn't be OK" thing.

Since the target was very rich, it is probable that the wife was the aggressor. However, if I was the plumber, I'd use some of that money to share some of the "pain and suffering". Add 4 lines to his health record.
(I have very poor social skills )

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Then the non-daddy-spouse should get an attorney when he hears that some other dude possibly knocked his wife up. That attorney should then insist on DNA tests...

Not that guy, every divorced guy. In almost every statistic that I have seen, about 20% of married persons are unfaithful (both sexes).

$600 a month, for only 12 years, is over $85K.
It should be required by divorce attorneys, regardless of confidence.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

The law is pretty archaic, reflecting the idea that a wife was "stolen." The same way property gets stolen.

Agreed - but let's all admit something about human nature, and about ourselves. If our spouse/SO had an affair with someone, who among us would not only feel betrayed by their spouse/SO, but also feel greivously wronged by the paramour? The term "home wrecker" comes to mind.

Slut comes to mind. My last wife

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[FreeflyChile 0]

it takes two to tango. there are tons of legal instances where you owe no duty to someone until you put them in a bad (or worse) situation.

i think it's kind of like interference with business relationships... 2 parties have an agreement/oath/whatever, 3rd party comes along and screws everything up... i know, overly simplistic.

anyway, im not looking at this from a lawyerly perspective. i grew up very much respecting and valuing the marital institution, due to my upbringing. i am also very loyal and value loyalty and trust very much, so this kind of thing irks me a bit.

The way i see it, if you want to go with a married chick, or if the married chick wants to go with another guy, just get a divorce.

i knew what crim conversation was, i was just curious as to whether it was still actually enforced anywhere.

[ScottishJohn 25]

Quote

The plumber would likely see between $450k and $500k.

That is probably equivelent to a couple of hours work for a plumber

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[BIGUN 1,053]

Women are no longer considered property?
Damn.. when did that happen, right after Mandela died?
I've got to stay abreast of current events.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.