Woman Awarded $2 Million from Husband's Mistress

WKRN ^

[chance33_98]

A North Carolina woman is $2 million richer after winning a lawsuit against her husband's mistress.

She sued under the state's alien of affection law.

The woman testified that the other woman infiltrated her family and demanded retribution.

The judge agreed.

"Well, of course I think it takes two to tango," said Christine Cooper, the sued husband's girlfriend.

Some legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of the law, calling it an opportunity to get revenge on a spouse.

The ruling is the most money ever awarded under the law.

News 2 at 4:30
11.13.01

[chance33_98]

This could get ugly...

[Carolina]

Old North State Ping, CD!! ) ) )

[SugarRay]

"Alien of Affection" law??? Duh, I think it's "Alien Nation of Affection", to be precise...

[shawnlaw]

Not "alien of affection," but alienation of affection. Some states still have these on the books. These things crop up every once in a while...just for fun!

[Happygal]

Do they have a breach of promise law?

~thinkin'~ If I sued the men in my life for breakin' promises to me over the years, I'd be laughin' *L*

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

I'm virtually certain that the state legislature had a chance to repeal this law and chose not to, I'd say within the past month or two. I'm sure this will get the attention of the trial lawyers.

[Phantom Lord]

Since many ladies in this state like to use this out of date law for revenge, I say its time we throw the book at them and prosecute them for performing oral sex! Especially if it carries a long jail sentence. O-ya, its also illegal to have sex in this state in any position other than missionary.

[Wolfie]

Only if your wife runs off with Sam Francisco.

[xzins]

Alienation of affect SHOULD be a law in every state.

As the wife said, the other woman infiltrated an intact unit with full realization that she would cause irreparable damage.

The guy shouldn't be the only stuckee with alimony and child support. The conniver PAIR should both pay....gross negligence toward the feelings and economic security of another.

[NeoCaveman]

Wait, the woman had to pay money for having sex, this law is cool. (/sarcasm)

[NeoCaveman]

"Well, of course I think it takes two to tango," said Christine Cooper, the sued husband's girlfriend.

She should have stuck to solitaire.....hehehehehe

[Phantom Lord]

This law is stupid and should be removed from the books post haste. Wonder if there is a law allowing someone to sue their spouse for NOT having sex??? Seems that is also alienation of affection. Do you think that SHOULD be a law in every state??? If not, why.

[Constitution Day]

Right you are, 2 Kool!

Effort to end long-standing practice nixed
Alienation of affection claims to continue in North Carolina courts

Originally published in:
The Herald-Sun
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
Edition: State
Page: C8

By SCOTT MOONEYHAM Associated Press

RALEIGH - No law in North Carolina says jilted husbands and wives can sue their spouse's lover to recover damages for "alienation of affection."

But neither does the law say you can't file such claims. Forty-one states have such laws on the books, abolishing legal actions where people can be forced to pay monetary damages for stealing away the affections of someone's spouse.

Alienation of affection claims are part of the long history of English common law, stemming from the days when wives were considered chattel, part of their husband's property.

Last week, yet another legislative effort to abolish the claims in North Carolina received a blow as a bill was sent back to a Senate committee rather than face all-but-certain defeat by the chamber. Some lawmakers predicted that would be the last seen of the bill this year.

The legislation, already narrowly approved in the House with some Republican support, also would ban lawsuits for adultery.

Supporters of abolishing the claims say they are demeaning to women and are based on the premise that adulterous spouses aren't responsible for their own actions.

"I think in society today, we like to blame others for our problems," said Sen. Kay Hagan, D-Guilford, who ran the bill in the Senate.

That may be fine in theory, say opponents of the legislation. In practice, the threat of an alienation of affection claim is sometimes a woman's only recourse in a difficult, messy divorce.

"Women need that protection. In general, it is the man that has the money and the power to hire the good lawyer to get what he wants in a divorce case," said Sen. Patrick Ballantine, R-New Hanover. "The threat of this actually works as leverage when the woman is trying to get fair equitable property distribution, alimony, child custody, everything."

Supporters of the legislation argue that kind of threat should have no place in a divorce case and only heighten hostilities.

And they point to some cases in recent years where the threat of such a lawsuit became a reality, resulting in awards exceeding $1 million.

In May, a jury awarded Davidson College's wrestling coach $1.4 million from a doctor who had an affair with the coach's former wife. An Alamance County woman also won a $1 million award against a woman she blamed for breaking up her marriage in 1997.

But an argument finding resonance in the Senate is that continuing to allow the claims shows that state is supportive of the institution of marriage.

"The state, by allowing this tort to exist, is saying that we respect marriage, that we think the institution of marriage is important and yes, that it is wrong to try to intentionally break up a person's marriage," said Bill Brooks, president of the N.C. Family Policy Council.

Brooks, whose group has led the lobbying charge against a change, said opponents of alienation of affection claims rarely point out how difficult they are to win.

"Where they are won, it holds up the argument that marriage is extremely important," he said.

Brooks also believes there is little hue and cry among the people of the state to do away with something that gives them one more legal recourse.

"Why should a group of lawyers tell us we can't have this lawsuit if we want it?" he says, a reference to the N.C. Bar Association that has worked in support of the legislation.

Even so, supporters of the legislation say it isn't going away, despite last week's action in the Senate.

Rep. Joe Hackney, D-Orange, sponsor of the House bill, predicted that, if dead this year, the legislation would be resurrected in 2002.

"So long as we're in a minority of four or five in the nation, so long as it's being used and misused, then there will be a lot of interest in doing away with it," Hackney said.

© Copyright 2001 by The Durham Herald Company. All rights reserved. All material on heraldsun.com is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced or redistributed in any medium except as provided in the site's Terms of Use.

[back]

[Constitution Day]

Took me a while - needed to do a little research (see above)

[Constitution Day]

*

[Constitution Day]

*

[Constitution Day]

*

[Constitution Day]

They say that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...

[BikerNYC]

Those crazy trial lawyers at it again.

[Askel5]

You ever handle one of these?