I think it would be a more interesting story if we were to find out that the new husband thinks she is worth the $8 million and looks at it as having gotten a bargain…
1 Like
Our courts don’t recognize brainwashing by cults, but seducing is in a different category?
1 Like
Hey now, just because the man ol’ gubment struck down no-fault divorce laws that trapped women in marriages in perpetuity doesn’t mean we can’t still fight over them like they’re property when they leave, right? 
Don’t know who’s right or wrong here but that husband is totally putting on a big show of being hurt for the camera in that video.
Garymon, please, let it go. The original complaint was “Division of Joy”, and Ian Curtis set the time machine to 1976. He always sets the time machine earlier, it’s so annoying! I just… I can’t keep doing these alternate timelines with you guys…
1 Like
Sorry, the ghost memories from previous timelines get’s me all turned around.
1 Like
Holy Crap! Where did you get those numbers? I would like to read about it more, but teh googlez aren’t cooperating.
I just found another stat, that there’s parts of the country where women murder their husbands more often. Chicago is one of them. Also the disparity isn’t as high as I would have thought: for every 100 wives killed by the husband, there is 75 husbands killed by the wife.
2 Likes
What’s to stop a couple from trying a badger game scheme if this is the potential payout?
2 Likes
Believe it or not adultery is illegal in a lot of states, including some you would not expect.
2 Likes
I put all of it on the cheating partner. They are the only person who agreed to a monogamous relationship with the plaintiff. Whether they had cause to cheat is a separate matter depending on whether it was an abusive relationship.
I honestly don’t give a fuck about the nature of the relationship between the married couple save insofar as the abused spouse should take the abusive spouse to the cleaners legally. Holding third parties responsible for anyone else’s relationships is bat shit fucking crazy.
Nor should it ever have been.
No thanks. All three can go fuck themselves though. Otherwise, spot on.
4 Likes
I just saw those numbers very recently and it’s driving me crazy because I can’t remember where…
Agreed, but I think I could see “Alienation of Affection” being valid tort if fraudulent slander was used to trick a person into cheating or leaving a relationship by making false accusations against the spouse such that the cheater or divorcee wasn’t making choice based on facts but on falsehoods. If I say your house is on fire and you run out, that is on me, not you. If I were to falsely say someone’s husband is a proven bigamist and pedophile and back it up with faked documents and they left him for me, that would be on me, too. Leaving a pedophile is the right thing to do if true. But that is the kind of rare exception that proves the general rule. Alienation of Affection, otherwise, shoudn’t be a valid tort.
1 Like
Then the person who was tricked has a case, not the person the person who was tricked was married to. Incidentally, there’s a legal term for that. It’s called rape by deception, and though it’s admittedly murky territory, it doesn’t apply to the spouse cheated upon.
Not a great metaphor. In this case there isn’t property, but rather a third person.
In this case you have two distinct issues. You’ve deceived the person to sleep with you and you’ve defamed the person upon whom they cheated. Both could sue you for those separate transgressions, but you’re still not liable for one cheating on the other, nor should you be.
Again, a separate issue than with whom you sleep.
Granted it doesn’t apply here. But I respectfully disagree that it proves the rule in any case.
I still don’t think it ever should. I understand your argument and see your reasoning as sincere. But IMHO, you’re conflating two separate issues.
3 Likes
Well if he sued his wife and won, half the money would come from him and she’d be entitled to half of it.
2 Likes
That doesn’t look like Texas.
3 Likes
Oops. I saw Orlando, but that’s the judge’s name. 
1 Like
Unfortunately for the modern world, North Carolina allows these kinds of claims. Why?!?
Since Mr Huizar did not defend the claim (initially at least) - again, why the hell not? - the judge appears not to have had any option but to rule in the plaintiff’s favour, leaving only the measure of damages to be assessed.
After Keith King filed the April 2017 lawsuit, his legal team tried to serve Huizar more than 10 times in Texas and North Carolina and ran notices in newspapers in Raleigh and Texas, along with sending dozens of letters.
The clerk of Superior Court entered an entry of default on Jan. 3, 2018, meaning that since Huizar didn’t respond that the court was ruling in the plaintiff’s favor and the only thing to determine was the damages. Hudson upheld the clerk’s ruling in a Jan. 28 order.
1 Like
Jilted husband wins $8.8 million
The ultimate takeaway here is that, sometimes, jilting is a crime.
