I have not been paying much attention to the sordid details of former Senator John Edwards’ personal life, and it seems I’ve missed quite a bit — and there are even some interesting legal issues. For instance, this morning I learned that Elizabeth Edwards is threatening to sue Andrew Young, a former aide to Senator Edwards, for alienation of affection. ABC News reports:
In such a lawsuit, Edwards would argue an “alienation of affection,” alleging that Andrew Young’s role in covering up his former boss’s affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter was partly responsible for the failure of the Edwardses’ marriage.
Edwards is demanding Young stop speaking about the Edwardses’ marriage as he promotes his book, and that he make a major charitable donation. More from Overlawyered.
ABC also reports Hunter has sued Young to obtain possession of an alleged Edwards-Hunter sex tape. (I’m sure there’s a juicy Property I exam fact pattern in there somewhere.)
Mickey Kaus (via Instapundit) has an idea:
I say we let Elizabeth Edwards sue Andrew Young for “alienation of affections” when we let Warren Buffett sue both Edwardses for obtaining campaign contributions under massively false pretenses.
alkali says:
For instance, this morning I learned that Elizabeth Edwards is threatening to sue Andrew Young, a former aide to Senator Edwards, for alienation of affection.
Actually, you learned that Andrew Young claims that Elizabeth Edwards has threatened to sue him. Whether she has in fact made that threat is your inference. alkali(Quote)
The Drill SGT says:
In such a lawsuit, Edwards would argue an “alienation of affection,” alleging that Andrew Young’s role in covering up his former boss’s affair
I dont see how the case could survive discovery when Liz is deposed about when she learned of the affair(s) and what she did to cover them up. The Drill SGT(Quote)
cboldt says:
– Actually, you learned that Andrew Young claims that Elizabeth Edwards has threatened to sue him. –
True, that. All of these clowns are toxic. Still, I bet a significant number of people aspire to be just as “successful” as Edwards and Young are. I hope they all get their wish.
That is ROTFL funny. “I am not a liar,” says Young, with a straight face no less. Get the hook. cboldt(Quote)
Arthur Kirkland says:
It seems three rings is the norm for a circus. Arthur Kirkland(Quote)
Today's Tom Sawyer says:
I really hope this takes off....especially in claims against the illustrious candidate himself, since the weapons used against him will be those he used as a plaintiff trial lawyer Today’s Tom Sawyer(Quote)
Steve says:
I seem to remember, from previous posts on this site, that the law of North Carolina is particularly favorable towards “alienation of affection” claims.
It’s hard to imagine that someone could be held liable for nothing more than helping to cover up an associate’s affair, but to play devil’s advocate, the degree of Young’s assistance here seems to be quite extraordinary. Steve(Quote)
MCM says:
I’m not sure you understand how alienation of affection works in North Carolina. All you have to show is (1) a loving marriage that was (2) destroyed by (3) the actions of the defendant. The extent and timing of Elizabeth Edwards’ knowledge isn’t relevant, nor are her attempts to cover up the affair.
This tort is really the ultimate test of storytelling with the jury. MCM(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Is it really an “interesting legal issue[]” or just a chance to titter at John Edwards and associates? Anonsters(Quote)
Eric Rasmusen says:
This case is interesting because Young is making money off of his bad actions. Could Mrs. Edwards sue him for unjust enrichment because he is making profits off of actions against public policy (procuring sexual favors for pay–pimping, in effect) that damage her? Would his actions have to be actually criminal in North Carolina for such an action to win? Eric Rasmusen(Quote)
DjDiverDan says:
It was my understanding that many states had, by statute, abrogated the common law tort of alienation of affection. In Texas, it’s in Section of 1.107 of the Texas Family Code. Texas also abrogated the common law tort of criminal conversation (interesting historical note– it is my understanding that, in earlier English common law, the tort of criminal conversation could only be asserted by a wronged husband, on the theory that the man who cuckholded him was guilty of invading the husband’s “property interests” in his wife; only later did the tort become available to the wronged wife). Interestingly, the Texas courts will still allow a claim for negligent interference with familial relations, so if you plead that the interference was merely negligent (“Oops, sorry, I tripped and fell on top of your naked wife!”), you can get to a jury, but if you plead that the interference was willful, you get bounced. I take it that is not the case in North Carolina. DjDiverDan(Quote)
Dave N. says:
Just think, John Edwards almost became Vice President.
I thought he was an empty suit in 2004 (Kerry could have chosen better, but so could various other nominees for President). I think he is an empty suit and a vile human being now.
A pox on them all. Dave N.(Quote)
The Drill SGT says:
I’ll plead ignorance of both the Law and NC Law, but wouldn’t the fact that Liz had known about other Edwards affairs, or knew about this affair before or concurrently with Young go to the argument that either:
1. It wasn’t a loving marriage, but instead a political partnership LLC?
2. If Liz covered up earlier affairs, she would have less basis for arguing that this affair was what destroyed her marriage or (3) that Young destroyed it.
3. And of course if she learned of the affair before Young was involved in covering up, then it’s harder to argue that she was damaged by the coverup The Drill SGT(Quote)
David McCourt says:
alkali and cbolt,
Actually, the story has more in it than just that Young alleges that Elizabeth Edwards has threatened to sue him. ABC says “it has learned” what the claims of a such a suit would likely be, and quotes otherwise unidentified “sources” for pretty specific list of demands that Edwards is said to have made to Young’s legal team (not directly to Young). Pretty thin perhaps, but more than just Young alleging it.
Question: if this loony lawsuit actually is filed, do all the facts surrounding the state of the Edwards marriage before the sued upon “alienation” become relevant to establish causation or its absence? If John Edwards had other, prior, affairs, doesn’t it mean that the affections in question were alienated before any acts by the defendant? And is this an affirmative defense, or part of the plaintiff’s burden to negate?
Another question: are these Edwards people insane? David McCourt(Quote)
MCM says:
Those are all questions of fact for the jury. This is what good trial lawyers are for. MCM(Quote)
MCM says:
In North Carolina we not only have alienation of affections but also criminal conversation. The state legislature has repeatedly declined to remove them. (And criminal conversation in North Carolina is strict liability, by the way).
I think most of us look upon the 200-odd cases a year (with an occasionally large award) as a sort of government subsidy for the local gossip rags.
On the other hand we also lack strict liability in products liability suits. MCM(Quote)
frankcross says:
I don’t see any unjust enrichment claim. That doesn’t require any sort of illegal action but it requires taking something that belonged to the other party or for which the other party would expect compensation. If anything, Young should have deserved compensation for assisting the coverup, not the Edwards. He seemingly provided services gratuitously.
Nor does alienation of affections seem likely. NC is not “favorable” to the tort, it is just one of the few states that clearly recognizes its existence. The traditional facts are a wife sueing the other woman (why wouldn’t she sue Rielle?) I guess it might go to a jury, but it would seem to be quite a tough sell that the actions of Young destroyed the marriage — that the marriage would have been fine save for the coverup. frankcross(Quote)
Widmerpool says:
It’s too bad Tom Wolfe isn’t in his grave–because he’d have so much fun spinning in it. The Edwards Affair appears to be the result of mixing Bonfire of the Vanities with A Man in Full and then sprinkling on top a hefty dose of Penthouse Forum.
Yowza. Yowza. Flippidty-woo. (or something to that effect as Wolfe might say). Widmerpool(Quote)
Virginia says:
I don’t see how Elizabeth’s alienation of affections claim would lie against Young. Elizabeth’s not claiming that Young had an affair with John, or that he caused John to have an affair with Hunter. All he did was cover it up.
If Young had told Elizabeth about the affair, would John be able to sue Young if Elizabeth divorced him as a result? Virginia(Quote)
MCM says:
It doesn’t matter. You don’t have to specifically do anything or not do anything, whether it’s cheating or not cheating. To get to the jury you just have to be arguing that the defendant did some kind of malicious act (covering up an affair seems easy enough) that somehow led to the end of the marriage. If Elizabeth argues that she could have saved her loving marriage had she learned of the affair earlier, and that Andrew’s cover-up prevented her from doing so, then she can get to the jury.
“Criminal conversation” is the specific tort of “you had intercourse with my spouse”, end of story. MCM(Quote)
pmk says:
They are both good reasons. John Edwards and co are a pox. nymag had a gripping excerpt from game changer about the entire sordid affair. pmk(Quote)
Virginia says:
To get to the jury you just have to be arguing that the defendant did some kind of malicious act (covering up an affair seems easy enough) that somehow led to the end of the marriage. If Elizabeth argues that she could have saved her loving marriage had she learned of the affair earlier, and that Andrew’s cover-up prevented her from doing so, then she can get to the jury.
How on earth could someone get to a jury arguing something like that? That’s entirely speculative. I’d toss it on a motion to dismiss.
That argument would be like me suing my high school gym teacher for $10 million, claiming that if he had done a better job I would have had a lucrative career playing in the NBA instead of flipping burgers. Virginia(Quote)
MCM says:
I am explaining to you what the primae facie case for alienation of affections is. The basic elements of alienation of affections are (1) a loving marriage that was (2) ended by (3) the defendant’s malicious act. If you’re filing a motion to dismiss, the court is going to look at my allegations in the light most favorable to me.
There are lots of speculative torts — but for defendant tortious act/omission X, I would not have suffered/would have benefited by Y.
Have you never heard of tortious interference with business relations/contract? Think of this like that, but for marriage.
And if the law of North Carolina had firmly established that your high school gym teacher had a duty to do such a good job as to make you into an NBA basketball player, you would win. Your analogy is useless because North Carolina definitely does recognize alienation of affections as a legitimate cause of action. MCM(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Evidently most of Edward’s campaign staff knew about his paramour, and didn’t tell the wife. So while Young took active measures to cover up for Edwards, the others lent support by being passive. As such are they vulnerable in this heart balm action?
I thought that heart balm suits had all but disappeared in this age of no-fault divorce. What’s different about SC that they should have retained this archaic kind of statute? A. Zarkov(Quote)
MCM says:
North Carolina, not South Carolina. In any case that’s a complex historical question. We’ve always sort of been an odd-ball state. MCM(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Last Fall I toured Charleston and the locals told me that NC and SC are quite different, and in fact rivals. One looks down on the other. Charleston is certainly the most friendly and polite city I have ever visited. The contrast with California is stark, where rudeness is almost a way of life, especially in Berkeley. A. Zarkov(Quote)
MCM says:
I moved to Chicago from North Carolina some years ago and held the door open for a woman entering a building behind me. She was shocked. MCM(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
I can’t believe she would do this. I think Young has some money but is it worth years of bad publicity to her?
Her reputation (since she knew about it and still campaigned for president) is already under fire, this would not help.
Does she want to be on Court TV that much? Bob from Ohio(Quote)
theobromophile says:
My thoughts exactly. Aside from the deep pockets issue, there’s nothing to be gained by suing Young (and this goes for Rielle Hunter suing Young to get the sex tape).
It would be funny, though, to watch Elizabeth argue that if Young had been different, Edwards would have stopped tomcatting around. What’s the argument? That had Elizabeth known about this particular affair, John would have suddenly become a model husband? That, after failing to stop a plethora of other affairs, this one (when John has made comments about having Rielle marry him after Elizabeth passes) would have ended?
In other words, can you really sue for alienation of affection when the affection wasn’t there to be alienated? theobromophile(Quote)
MCM says:
If you don’t claim the existence of a loving marriage in your complaint, then no, you can’t. But how hard do you really think it will be for Elizabeth to claim there was one, and cite some basic evidence that one existed?
Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer or something?
Again, you fail to understand the basic elements of the tort. She does not have to prove that Young caused John to cheat. She does not have to prove that John would have stopped cheating. She only has to convince the jury that she could have saved the marriage if she had known of the affair earlier.
It has nothing to do with the cheating occurring or not occurring. She can even have known of prior affairs, so long as she can convince the jury that the marriage was generally happy in spite of them.
The inability of people to understand this tort astounds me. MCM(Quote)
Larvell Blanks says:
By claiming that the child was his, rather than Edwards’s, wasn’t Young trying to preserve affection between the spouses, rather than alienate it? He wasn’t the one having an affair with Edwards, he just tried to cover up Edwards’s affair to save the marriage. Larvell Blanks(Quote)
tarheel says:
I can confirm MCM’s synopsis of the state of the law in our fair state. The discovery on whether this was a loving marriage would be voluminous, but, if pled properly, it will survive a MTD. tarheel(Quote)
Bama 1L says:
Maybe Elizabeth Edwards will feel better if she can get a court to say Young wronged her and force Young to write her a check. That’s why we call alienation of affection a “heart-balm tort.” It’s never really about the money damages.
Of course, that’s also why nearly every jurisdiction has abolished it. Bama 1L(Quote)
theobromophile says:
MCM, if you could keep the snark down to a minimum and read what I wrote, you would see that I was making perfect sense. I wasn’t talking about a prima facie case, which seems to be your tunnel-visioned focus on this thread, but about whether or not Elizabeth can win. She doesn’t just need to prove a prima facie case of actual causation, but needs to survive any evidence to the contrary that Andrew Young might put on.
Last time I checked, defendants are entitled to cross-examination and to put on their own evidence. While Elizabeth’s prima facie case may be mildly amusing, Young’s side of the case would be hysterical. I’m trying to imagine Elizabeth, on the witness stand, answering questions like “How many women had John slept with before he met Andrew Young?” and “Instead of covering up the relationship, had Mr. Young told you that your husband was promising to marry Rielle Hunter in a rooftop ceremony in Manhattan, complete with the Dave Matthews Band, what would you have done to save your marriage?”
My lawyerly advice to her would be to stay far, far away from a lawsuit like this, because any decent defence attorney would humiliate her... and she would have no one to blame but herself. theobromophile(Quote)
Larvell Blanks says:
All you have to show is (1) a loving marriage that was (2) destroyed by (3) the actions of the defendant. The extent and timing of Elizabeth Edwards’ knowledge isn’t relevant, nor are her attempts to cover up the affair.
...
The inability of people to understand this tort astounds me.
I’m astounded, too — that the same person made each of the above statements. The timing of her knowledge isn’t even “relevant” to whether it was Young’s actions that “destroyed” a “loving marriage” (as opposed to, say, the fact that John had an affair resulting in a love child)? The fact that she herself tried to cover up John’s affair is not even “relevant” to her claim that someone else’s cover-up was what did the marriage in? Maybe “relevant” has a different meaning in North Carolina. Larvell Blanks(Quote)
Bama 1L says:
Virginia looks down on both. Bama 1L(Quote)
Edwards’ Affair Spawns Litigation | Liberal Whoppers says:
MCM says:
Relevant to the JURY, yes. Not relevant to the prima facie case of alienation of affections.
On the contrary, I suggest YOU read what you wrote. Maybe you shouldn’t have concluded your post by asking,
and instead asked something like, “Can you win at trial when...”.
Yes, that’s precisely the kind of question that the NC Rules of Civil Procedure allow. But more importantly...
I really think you are underestimating the sympathy value of a wronged, dying woman. Juries eat that crap up. This is not an argument in front of a bunch of law students. This is a soap opera. You are not going to get anywhere trying to humiliate the victim in cross-examination. MCM(Quote)
MCM says:
In North Carolina we like to say that we are a vale of humility between two mountains of conceit. MCM(Quote)
Virginian says:
True dat. Virginian(Quote)
David McCourt says:
MCM,
You say, “[t]o get to the jury you just have to be arguing that the defendant did some kind of malicious act (covering up an affair seems easy enough) that somehow led to the end of the marriage.”
I think you are stretching the tort, at least for proceedings that look beyond the sufficiency of the pleadings. There is such a thing as summary judgment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the explanations of the tort, both generally and in N.C., indicate that, in order to be liable, the defendant’s conduct must (a) be “malicious,” or at least be done knowing the likely result, and (b) actually contribute to or cause the loss of affection.
I don’t see how maliciousness can be conjured out of an employee following the employer’s directions, and talking public responsibility for the employer’s actions. And what duty did the employee owe to the plaintiff that required him to inform her? Under this rule, half the bar tenders and hotel managers in town could be liable for not informing on their customers. And what of the employee’s actual duties to his creepy boss; don’t they count? If not, could a clergyman or advisor to whom the cheating spouse confessed be liable for not revealing the confidence?
Second, “contribute to or cause,” however elastic “contribute” is read, implies a degree of causality far stronger than the “somehow led” you mention. That seems little more than “but for” causation. At that rate, and if no duty is required, the guy at the gas station who fills the cheating spouse’s car on his travels to the trysts can be liable, if he knows where he’s going.
If this is wrong, you might want to provide case citation to instances where a third-party, such as an employee of the unfaithful spouse, or another bystander, with no duties running to the plaintiff, was found liable simply for helping to conceal, or just failing to reveal, the spouse’s infidelity.
One question: since “contributing” to the loss of affection is the standard for causation, presumably Young can bring in by third party pleading, not just “the other woman,” but all the other joint tortfeasors — i.e., everyone else in the campaign, in town, around the country, at the National Enquirer, in Elizabeth’s circle (?), etc., who knew and said nothing, to make contribution. Yes? David McCourt(Quote)
Eric Rasmusen says:
Readers might be interested in the article of mine below. They might also be intersted in the fact that a common defendant in older alienation of affections suits was the mother-in-law. Sexual misconduct is not an element of the tort, at least traditionally (NC might be different now, of course.)
“An Economic Approach to Adultery Law,” Chapter 5, pp. 70–91 of Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.A long– term relationship such as marriage will not operate efficiently without sanctions for misconduct, of which adultery is one example. Traditional legal sanctions can be seen as different combinations of various features, differing in who initiates punishment, whether punishment is just a transfer or has real costs, who gets the transfer or pays the costs, whether the penalty is determined ex ante or ex post, whether spousal rights are alienable, and who is punished. Three typical sanctions, criminal penalties for adultery, the tort of alienation of affections, and the self-help remedy of justification are formally modelled. The penalties are then discussed in a variety of specific applications to past and present Indiana law. In MS-Word, , and pdf. ( http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_02.BOOK.adultery.pdf) . Eric Rasmusen(Quote)
MCM says:
Knowing and saying nothing is not the same as actively concealing. But yes, the behavior has to be malicious — like enabling an affair by actively covering for John or facilitating the behavior.
Again, it’s not the “not informing”, it’s the active concealment and facilitation. The duty is “don’t interfere in my marriage in a way that you know is likely to negatively impact it”. And again, since the standard is malice, you’d have to know the person is married. There’s no duty to inform, but there’s a duty not to interfere.
I’m not sure how the employment relationship matters here. Every person in North Carolina has a duty not to maliciously cause the end of happy marriages.
(Somewhat unrelated, but there is a legislative rule that prohibits plaintiffs from suing businesses for the actions of their employees.) MCM(Quote)
MCM says:
Under a theory of AoA, of course. So no suing strip clubs, et cetera. MCM(Quote)
Dr. Weevil says:
MCM:
“I moved to Chicago from North Carolina some years ago and held the door open for a woman entering a building behind me. She was shocked.”
I think it’s a blue state / red state thing. My sister lived in Boston for years. Once when she was on a business trip in Salt Lake City, some guy stepped on her foot in a crowd and profusely apologized. She thought he was trying to pick her up or scam her until she remembered she wasn’t in Boston and he was just being polite. Dr. Weevil(Quote)
Dan Weber says:
NC is a contributory negligence state, right? Does that apply to AoA? Dan Weber(Quote)
DjDiverDan says:
Alienation of affection was, at common law, an intentional tort, so no, contributory negligence does not apply. Also, in response to an earlier post regarding Andrew Young possibly bringing in others by third-party complaint for contribution, it was my recollection from Torts (admittedly some 29 years ago now — I’ve never practiced in that area) that contribution claims were also inapplicable to intentional torts — contribution is an equitable remedy which can be barred by “unclean hands”, which would be the case for all intentional tortfeasors. Is that right? Or am I experiencing the onset of Alzheimers? DjDiverDan(Quote)
theobromophile says:
MCM: this is a blog comment section. For many reasons — your nitpicking, your near-hijacking of this thread, etc — please chill.
Substantively: you’re not necessarily right on the jury issue. Aside from various procedural motions that can be used to keep things away from a jury (judgment on the merits, summary judgment, appeals, etc.), there are a lot of women who are not going to have much sympathy for her. Yes, there’s the emotional “hands off the dying lady” thing, but women are tough on each other, and few women (and almost no men) would shed many tears for the woman who stayed in her marriage when she was healthy and only now sues... her husband’s friend. Trust this; women are tough on each other. theobromophile(Quote)
Barbara Skolaut says:
“NC and SC are quite different, and in fact rivals. One looks down on the other.
Virginia looks down on both.”
In (North) Carolina, they’re taught the 3 R’s: Readin’, ‘Ritin’, and Road to Richmond. :-D
As for the supposed suit, the whole lot of them are already losers. This is just
KingQueen of the Hill. Barbara Skolaut(Quote)David McCourt says:
MCM:
“I moved to Chicago from North Carolina some years ago and held the door open for a woman entering a building behind me. She was shocked.”
That’s because you were supposed to let her enter before you, not behind you.
I lived in NYC and haved lived for years in Chicago. I habitually open doors for women, and have not in my memory had such a reaction. I’ve had smiles and thanks, but no shock.
If you really don’t like us up here, the road lies open to the south; watch the ice. David McCourt(Quote)
David McCourt says:
DjDiverDan,
You’re right; there may be no right of contribution under the applicable statute for an intentional tortfeasor. However, this defendant could at least bring in the cheating spouse/employer, as his principal to whom he would look to be indemnified for harms caused while acting at the principal’s direction.
Unless NC law is to the contrary, he would also likely have claims for equitable indemnity against both the cheating spouse and the other woman. Access to this very broad equitable claim would (or should) not be barred to an intentional tortfeasor. The whole point of the remedy is to put the damages on the baddest of the bad guys, by shifting it from one whose fault is secondary or passive to one whose’s fault is primary or active. There are no requirements other than that, under all the facts, the one party should bear the loss. Equitable subrogation is another, similar, claim that could be made here.
As most contribution statutes expressly say they do not impair any right of indemnity under existing law, they would (or should) not block this avenue to make the happy couple pay. David McCourt(Quote)
Cornellian says:
So John Edwards and Rielle Hunter named their kid Litigation Edwards? Cornellian(Quote)
Suzy says:
My guess is that this lawsuit talk is just part of an ongoing battle, the true stakes of which are not clear to those of us looking on from the outside. What kind of information could come out if such a case is pursued? Maybe that’s good enough reason to threaten it. She wants to ruin him, I’m guessing, and this could be one useful strategy in the overall plan to do just that. She has nothing to lose at this point. I wouldn’t want her as an enemy right now, when she has no marriage or political future to preserve, these health concerns, and her dirty secrets have already been aired.
In addition, I think people are narrowing the idea of “covering up” down to “lying about it so nobody would find out.” If what we’ve heard is true, then Young has done so much more, so very much more, than this. My understanding is that he actively facilitated their trysts and that the deceptive acts went far beyond just not telling Elizabeth, or denying it. Suzy(Quote)
Ted F says:
If you read “The Politician,” Mrs. Edwards comes off as not much less vile than the husband: after Young threw himself under the bus to take “credit” for the love child, Elizabeth did her damnedest to harass Young, as if blaming him for everything would somehow make her husband’s lies truthful. The threatened lawsuit, if true, would be of a similar pattern of revenge. Ted F(Quote)
David McCourt says:
It hard to imagine this guy was a leading candidate for Pres., VP, AG, etc.
The following bit of verse speculated during the campaign about who Obama would pick to replace Biden as running mate, after Joe had made the umpteenth gaff in one week. Seems like a long time ago:
When Joe doth go, whose shall replace
that surgically enhanc-ed face?
There’s Edwards, of the Breck girl bang.
On this slim sylph O’s fate would hang?
“Throw out Don Juan!” would be the cry.
Edwards tends bedwards, there let him lie.
Or what of Gotham’s crown-ed Hill?
She’d do the job, but for her Bill.
For he would, like Polonious, lurk
behind an arras, with a clerk.
There’s el bandito Richardson:
a stew-ed hen, far too well done.
And hobbit-boy Dennis Kucinich?
A spine as stiff as wilted spinach.
The rest, ’tis sad, but must be said:
they’ll not be missed when they are dead.
Doddering fools, thin piping Reids,
Pelosi gorgons mouthing screeds....
Which leaves us with the blessed O,
Overstock of charm and brio.
There’s none that’s fit to tend his train,
so all alone the O shall reign. David McCourt(Quote)
MCM says:
“Near-hijacking”? I have only talked about AoA in this thread. Please show me where I “near-hijacked” it, so that I can complete the hijacking. Maybe you’re mad that you made a poorly worded post and made yourself look foolish. That sounds like a personal problem you should work out elsewhere. This is a blog comment section, after all.
And if you think I was “nitpicking” I suggest you find yourself a new vocation.
You should type “women are tough on each other” a few more times. Third time’s a charm, at least.
In other words you have no argument and you’re just banging empty platitudes into your keyboard.
The door opened inward. MCM(Quote)
Chris Travers says:
This being said, I would think that a jury would look less-than-kindly on allegations of alienation of affection based on a cover-up that was similar to what the plaintiff had done in previous cases. It would seem to me rather difficult to argue that Mrs. Edwards’ coverups were legitimate but Mr Young’s were not, esp. if Mrs. Edwards was involved in covering up the affair too. The obvious argument is that Mr Young was doing Mrs. Edwards a favor, not harming her interests at all.
I would think you would need more than a cover-up allegation to get very far. Now, if Mr Young had made arrangements for Mr. Edwards and his mistress to meet, etc. then I could see it.
Somehow, the facts we are getting seem either incomplete or inaccurate. Chris Travers(Quote)
Chris Travers says:
Because the rest of the country got rid of it ages ago ;-) (and good riddence!) Chris Travers(Quote)
Chris Travers says:
MCM:
Here’s my viewpoint. This is stupid. While in just about any divorce, I am sure someone can argue a well-pleaded case of alienation of affections against any of the former spouse’s associates sufficiently to survive a MTD, I think the real question here is whether one can survive summary judgement.
It doesn’t seem to me much of a feat to file a lawsuit of this sort that survives an MTD. However, I would expect the fundamental question here to be whether what is known at the moment make it likely that the case would survive a summary judgement and get to a jury, or whether a judge would read through the discovery record and issue a judgement for Young. Chris Travers(Quote)
readery says:
It seems to me that many comments are confusing a jury decision following a full trial with a judge’s decision following a motion to dismiss earlier in the proceedings.
One only has to set out a prima facie case to get past a motion to dismiss and get to the jury. Because the tort is very simple and only requires evidence of a loving marriage, the substantial diminution of affections (complete distruction isn’t required), and causality, it shouldn’t be difficult to survive a motion to dismiss and get to a jury trial. However, because of a variety of other evidence the defense could bring up, it’s entirely possible the jury would ultimately find for the defendant’s if a lawsuit happened. However, they could find for the plaintiff. It depends on who the jury ultimately believes, who they sympathize with, who they think the wrongdoer and who the wronged. This involves variables that cannot be completely predicted in advance. readery(Quote)
Chris Travers says:
I don’t know about anyone else but I am much more interested in what would be required for the suit to get past summary judgement. It seems trivial to plead this sort of case well in any divorce against almost any associate of one’s ex-spouse. The question to my mind is whether such a case, given what is known about this case thus far, if it seems likely that one could come up with enough evidence merely on the allegations provided to get past a summary judgement motion. Chris Travers(Quote)