WNCT-TV reports:
The woman who broke up a North Carolina couple’s marriage has to pay $5.8 million [to the ex-wife]….“[The defendant, the husband's former high school classmate,] came down and helped my client paint her nursery and in the process she helped herself to my client’s husband,” Cynthia Mills of Mills & Bryant.
She represented Lynn Arcara in the alienation of affection case she took to trial against Susan Pecoraro, a woman she once called her friend….
The trial was apparently before a judge, without a jury (presumably because the parties waived their right to trial by jury); the damages award was “the second largest alienation of affection judgment to ever be made in the state.” The story reports that, “The mistress in this case lives in Maryland so chances are she may never pay a dime in this judgment”; that surprises me, since I would assume the judgment is enforceable across state boundaries (though perhaps it might not be worth trying to enforce, if the mistress has no money). [UPDATE: I'm relying on the principle that there is "no roving 'public policy exception' to the full faith and credit due judgments."]
For more on the alienation of affections tort, see this post. Also, as I discuss here, in fiscal years 2000-2007, there were an average of 230 alienation of affections filings in North Carolina per year — a bit over 0.5% of the number of all divorces. The tort is also recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah, but it seems to be often litigated only in North Carolina and (to an apparently smaller extent) in Mississippi; I’ve seen very few reports of alienation of affections cases from the other jurisdictions. For the leading modern court opinion on whether the tort should be retained, see Fitch v. Valentine (Miss. 2007).
LessinSF says:
I’ve got unexpected distress from my mistress …
September 10, 2010, 6:58 pmJust Dropping By says:
My best guess (assuming that statement is accurate) is that Maryland doesn’t recognize claims for alienation of affection and the reporter is thinking that a Maryland court would refuse to domesticate the judgment on public policy grounds.
September 10, 2010, 7:02 pmDebrah says:
This is surreal.
I recall reading about this some time ago; however, never expected such a case to go anywhere.
There have been cases when “alienation of affection” was used against step-parents in which the individual accused of alienating the affection of a child from the biological parent was sued.
Especially if the accused happened to be someone of wealth.
But such cases involving sexual attraction and romance between adults strike me as ridiculous.
The heart wants what the heart wants.
~~~~~~
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind…
~~~~~~
Or what remains in the bank account!
September 10, 2010, 7:32 pmGuy says:
I’d be interested to know how that figure was reached, I’m guessing some calculation based on the husband’s salary? Or is this just a ridiculously huge punitive award?
September 10, 2010, 8:01 pmAlessandra says:
If the guy could care less about his wife and his marriage, why couldn’t he just end the marriage first and start something new with the then not “other woman,” but new girlfriend?
The wife here missed putting half of the blame where it lies: squarely on her husband’s shoulder.
Americans are too messed up about their attitudes related to personal relationships and sexuality, that’s why a number of them show themselves incapable of demonstrating any ethics concerning marriage. In a culture that screams “I must get my sexual kicks, not matter how deformed, damaging, or dysfunctional,” adultery and homosexuality are desperately being normalized. It’s the arrogant, insensitive, narcissistic and egotistic sexuality attitudes and behaviors that must come first.
And as long as society doesn’t completely collapse, that’s what it’s going to continue being: an emotionally violent space concerning relationships and sexuality, where the most irresponsible and dysfunctional groups will justify their actions and ideologies as a quest for personal freedom.
September 10, 2010, 8:08 pmAnym_Avey says:
How could you know that from the cited news item? I don’t see any details about the divorce and litigation or settlement thereof, only details about this case which is separate.
September 10, 2010, 8:17 pmAlessandra says:
Are you suggesting he was raped? It takes two to tango.
:-P
September 10, 2010, 8:19 pmGuy says:
I would argue he has earned substantially more than half the blame, the mistress never made any vows to the wife.
September 10, 2010, 8:22 pmRichard Hoogesteger says:
The amount of social damage done by adultery and divorce is huge. When I practiced divorce law it always struck me that people who have sex with other peoples spouses, particularily when children are involved, do far more damage to the community than many whom we punish as criminals. A shoplifter or a drug abuser does much less to harm others than an adulterer. I have seen situations where a single act of adultery sets in motion generations of pain for a family. Consequently the use of this tort to contain the problem seems reasonable.
September 10, 2010, 8:30 pmAngus says:
All of this should, frankly, be of zero concern to the government. The fact that this type of nonsensical government nannying takes place most often in the south is not a surprise.
September 10, 2010, 8:35 pmOwen H. says:
Yet another holdout in law, regarding women as property.
September 10, 2010, 8:39 pmElemenope says:
The amount of social damage done by adultery and divorce is huge. When I practiced divorce law it always struck me that people who have sex with other peoples spouses, particularily when children are involved, do far more damage to the community than many whom we punish as criminals. A shoplifter or a drug abuser does much less to harm others than an adulterer.
That may be so, but “social damage” can’t be the only standard for what should be liable to redress for tort (much less what should be criminalized). Lots of things that an individual can do are damaging to lots of people, by way of externality, that we would never think should be actionable; the guy who goes to work (or kid who goes to school) while infected with a bad cold/flu, the person who eats three big macs a day every day or the four-pack-a-day smoker (driving up health care costs), the profligate home-loan officer, and so forth.
Hell is other people; harm that proceeds from this simple fact is often unavoidable and sometimes unredressable.
September 10, 2010, 8:43 pmCharles Jannace says:
Susan Pecoraro, who has since been divorced from her husband, used to be employed at my law office in Salisbury, Maryland. She no longer lives in Maryland and her last name is not Pecoraro. Upon information and belief, the judgment in NC was rendered by default. However, as I now understand her circumstances, albeit third hand, the enrolled judgment would be substantially uncollectable.
September 10, 2010, 8:44 pmElemenope says:
The fact that this type of nonsensical government nannying takes place most often in the south is not a surprise.
North Carolina, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.
Well, they’re all south of Canada, anyway.
September 10, 2010, 8:45 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
The wife get the judgment against another woman.
Seems like the man is the “property” here.
September 10, 2010, 8:45 pmpaul mckaskle says:
There is no public policy exception for Full faith and credit. See Fauntleroy v. Lum per Holmes, J. The defendant entered into an illegal gambling contract in Mississippi (it was a sale of cotton futures–now a commonplace event, but illegal at the time in Mississippi.) The plaintiff sued in Missouri, having found the defendant there (possibly visiting the St. Louis World Fair immortalized in a movie–”meet me in St Louie, meet me at the fair”–the fair was on when the lawsuit was initiated). The Missouri court found defendant liable for breach of contract and awarded damages. Plaintiff took the judgment to Mississippi and the Mississippi Court refused to enforce it, but the US Supreme Court (5-4 decision, and the dissent made some pretty good points) said it was enforceable under ffc–there was no question that Missouri had jurisdiction over the defendant (about the only easy defense to a ffc claim)therefore it was enforceable.
Possibly the reporter confused refusal to enforce a foreign judgment under principles of comity–several courts have refused to enforce British libel judgments because of inadequate 1st amendment types of defenses in Britain. But foreign judgments are not protected by ffc.
September 10, 2010, 8:47 pmAngus says:
You missed the part of the post wherein EV says that while several states have such laws still on the books from previous–and more oppressive–eras, they are apparently only litigated today in North Carolina and Mississippi.
September 10, 2010, 8:47 pmDave M. says:
I don’t see it as ridiculous at all. It’s like a domestic version tortious interference.
September 10, 2010, 8:49 pmptt says:
The size of the settlement is so large, according to the news story, because the couple could have made so much money if they had stayed together. Odd, since the plaintiff is a radiologist and the husband is described as “retired from the Navy”. Seems like she would be making more money than his retirement pay, no?
September 10, 2010, 8:57 pmChris Travers says:
Let’s see…. North Carolina is in the South. New Mexico and Utah are in the Southwest. Hawaii is south of every other state. South Dakota has “South” in it’s name. That leaves Illinois as the exception, right? I am sure that makes it Obama’s fault in some way…..
September 10, 2010, 9:00 pmElemenope says:
You missed the part of the post wherein EV says that while several states have such laws still on the books from previous–and more oppressive–eras, they are apparently only litigated today in North Carolina and Mississippi.
I didn’t miss that part, but it is a fair point. One has to wonder though, if they really are viewed as oppressive atavisms why those states as a matter of public policy haven’t obliterated it. And FWIW, Hawaii really hasn’t been around long enough to have taken part, as a matter of state law, in the oppressive period that would have generated such (1860-1930).
Edit: And I don’t know that the claim that these cases don’t occur at all in the other states is strictly accurate. Poking around a bit online, it seems that some of the other states have “reformed” their alienation of affection rules to limit the causes of action and so forth, but have not eliminated the tort. If it were the case that these laws were just blue laws, and anathema to the way things are done today, that instead of “reforming” them the legislature and/or courts would have simply disposed of them?
September 10, 2010, 9:01 pmNathan_M says:
United States of America: the freest country in the world if you want to burn the Qur’an; not so much if you just like sex.
September 10, 2010, 9:04 pmElemenope says:
South Dakota has “South” in it’s name. That leaves Illinois as the exception, right? I am sure that makes it Obama’s fault in some way…
LOL.
September 10, 2010, 9:10 pmThatGuy says:
Quick points:
1) Alienation of Affection is a family law matter, and thus in NC will be in the original jurisdiction of the district court, which is always a bench trial.
2) It cuts both ways. Either party in a marriage may bring an alienation of affection suit.
3) Dave M is correct, it is a suit brought against the third party which disrupts the marriage, much like a domestic tortious interference.
4) Ptt – She may have claimed the value of lost retirement accounts, insurance, medical benefits, marital funds spent on the other woman in gifts and travel, etc. If the defendant didn’t show, it was whatever non-ludicrous number the plaintiff came up with. Sucks when you don’t show up to trial and then complain about the verdict huh?
5) This tort is entirely separate from whatever the plaintiff receives in equitable distribution in the divorce.
6) Moral: Don’t cheat on your spouse in NC.
September 10, 2010, 9:11 pmA. Criminal says:
It’s quite primitive (tho in this case it seems that men are property). The courts’ generally favorable treatment of women as compared to men is another slightly less primitive holdover. At least I haven’t heard of any arrests for “seduction” lately.
September 10, 2010, 9:18 pmAnon says:
Except this would seem to be the man being regarded as property.
September 10, 2010, 9:22 pmElemenope says:
6) Moral: Don’t cheat on your spouse in NC.
Since the suit is directed against the third party, wouldn’t the moral rather be: Don’t be a paramour to someone married in NC?
September 10, 2010, 9:24 pmDebrah says:
I’ll preface by saying that I respect those who’ve put enormous effort into building a life together and also into raising children.
However, let’s not get into deification.
Lots of marriages are mere usury and, unfortunately, some women still define themselves by whether or not they are tethered to a man or by how many babies they pop out.
It’s astonishingly pathetic.
September 10, 2010, 9:27 pmAnon says:
After reading the rest of the comments, I see this has been addressed. I didn’t delete it because pointing out your knee jerk reaction is too much fun.
September 10, 2010, 9:29 pmThatGuy says:
Point, although since criminal conversation still exists as well, both are true.
September 10, 2010, 9:36 pmformer Dem Pres candidate says:
6) Moral: Don’t cheat on your spouse in NC.
Say WHAT?
September 10, 2010, 9:41 pmElemenope says:
Point, although since criminal conversation still exists as well, both are true.
True, and speaking of wacky torts, criminal conversation wins.
September 10, 2010, 9:55 pmCharles Jannace says:
$5.8m to a radiologist. I wonder if Elizabeth Edwards lives in Pitt County and can judge shop. Hunter may now be the hunted.
September 10, 2010, 9:56 pmFub says:
Proof that the law frowns on self-help.
[ducks and runs]
September 10, 2010, 9:58 pmChris W says:
Question from a non-lawyer –
If the husband and wife had been from South Carolina, and the husband and mistress’s tryst occurred in N.C., could the wife still bring the suit?
i.e. Would N.C. family court have jurisdiction over an S.C. marriage issue?
September 10, 2010, 10:00 pmNowMDJD says:
Fub wins the thread.
September 10, 2010, 10:43 pmDave M. says:
Deification? What sport are you even playing, because I’m not sure that we’re even in the same stadium of debate, let alone on the same playing field… I think you are reading too much of what you want to see into what’s going on here, both with the law in the case, the history behind that law, and in the discussion.
The concept is that a husband and wife have a mutual duty to love, honor, and support one another through their implicit marital contract. Alienation of affection involves an adulterous third party, whether male or female, who interferes in the marriage by disrupting one spouse’s performance of his or her marital obligations to the other spouse.
When properly put in those terms, how is this ridiculous in any jurisdiction that desires to treat marriage as a public policy goal? The idea is that the third party that interferes in the marriage has caused a tortious harm to the injured spouse (i.e., the spouse that didn’t cheat).
How is that ridiculous? I concede that it’s a policy that originated in an era of lesser thinking on the balance of power within the husband-wife relationship. Yet, once stripped of the antiquated notions of subjecting women to their husbands, the intent behind the tort is still highly defensible.
Case in point: the suit that caused this blog post… A man cheated on his wife. SHE sued the “other woman” for ruining her marriage. She won…
As someone pointed out above: it seems that the subjugated “property” in this case, should one desire to put such a spin on the tort, was the HUSBAND and not the wife. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a damned empowering tool for both men and women.
September 10, 2010, 10:44 pmSteve says:
One of the comments above suggests that this was a default judgment. While the linked article refers to a trial, it’s possible there was a default on liability and the plaintiff simply had to present proof on the issue of damages. If it was, in fact, a default judgment, it’s possible that it wouldn’t be automatically enforceable under full faith and credit.
September 10, 2010, 10:45 pmJoe says:
In Fitch: engaged in sexual relations “[l]ike normal couples”. What’s the legal standard in Mississippi these days on that point?
September 10, 2010, 10:46 pmThatGuy says:
Not a family lawyer, and I haven’t consulted any references, but I don’t think you could bring an alienation of affection claim in NC for a SC marriage, even if the affair occurred in NC. However, there may still be a criminal conversation (adultery) case against the adulterer, I would have to look it up.
September 10, 2010, 11:01 pmEugene Volokh says:
ThatGuy: I’m pretty sure that alienation of affections is a normal tort, albeit one arising out of a marriage, and is normally tried to a jury unless the parties waive their right to jury trial (see, for instance, this story).
September 10, 2010, 11:22 pmScott says:
can someone still be charged with adultery after Lawrenece vs Texas?
September 10, 2010, 11:23 pmGuy says:
It’s unclear, the plaintiffs distinguished adultery laws, but the majority doesn’t seem to address the issue. O’Connor’s concurrence suggests that protecting the institution of marriage would be a sufficient rationale to survive rational basis, but it’s not perfectly clear that that was the standard the majority applied. I think at least one court struck down a fornication law after Lawrence, but can’t recall for sure. I’m not aware that any court has struck down adultery laws as unconstitutional. I would consider such a ruling to be a significant extension, rather than a straightforward application, of Lawrence.
It seems pretty easy to distinguish, though. Adultery laws seek to protect stable and committed relationships, whereas sodomy laws seek to… stigmatize gay people and put them in prison. Not exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, adultery satisfies the criteria the court singled out – consensual, private, noncommercial, and between adults. So it’s not impossible to argue the other position.
September 10, 2010, 11:43 pmAnderson says:
What’s the legal standard in Mississippi these days on that point?
Well, the 5th Circuit gave us back our sex toys (that was a surprise), tho I’m never quite sure whether oral sex is breaking the law. I guess I could call the police to confess and see what happens.
Proud to see Miss. with “the leading case” in something besides obsolete slavery law and the finer points of marrying one’s cousin ….
September 11, 2010, 12:15 amAnthony says:
If we assume that marriage is a contract, and that contract includes fidelity to the other partner (which, given state law that specifies various features of marriage, including adultery laws, seems plausible), it seems easy to distinguish.
September 11, 2010, 12:16 amDebrah says:
You’ve done a stellar job of outlining the various aspects of such a case; however, I perhaps view personal relationships—the marital “contract”, notwithstanding—differently.
I’m inclined to give more weight to the concept of tortious interference in business matters.
Less so in matters of the heart.
I know, I know……marriage is a contractual agreement as well, but the whole concept seems forced.
The nature of the beast once “the law” is brought into play.
Insofar as one is bound to such a “duty” to “honor” another……is it any wonder there’s a penchant to cheat? (!)
You really can’t make someone feel love and a sense of duty and honor.
If they expire, they expire.
And I think this reality should extend into courtroom decisions as well.
September 11, 2010, 12:20 amJay says:
I don’t see how the (1), if true, isn’t a violation of the 7th Amendment right to jury trial.
September 11, 2010, 12:22 amOrenWithAnE says:
Or at least to be honest with your spouse that it’s not working for you and need to get a little something on the side. Although, I suppose you can be charged with adultery even if the marriage is open by mutual consent (or even mutual desire for an open marriage).
Half the blame? It’s entirely his blame. He made a solemn vow, she made no promise to anyone. How can she be blamed where she had no obligations with respect to the wife in the first instance?
It is entirely the responsibility of each individual to keep true to his oaths. If a man fails in that responsibility, he is culpable. If he fails at that responsibility and cannot even summon the sub-minimal decency to speak frankly to his wife about it, well, that’s a whole new level of scum.
September 11, 2010, 12:25 amEvan says:
… and here we have an argument to repeal the treason laws because every citizen has a duty to the country because of birth, without having voluntarily entered into it by a ceremony. Oh, what’s that? They voluntarily went through a
weddingceremony? Well, maybe they feel different now. We shouldn’t have laws against people doing what they want to do.[[sound of collected law books being thrown off the shelves by people who want to steal, do drugs, shoot the President, et cetera, because they don't like having a duty not to.]]
Back in the real world, I think patriotism is an excellent example of having “someone feel love and a sense of duty and honor.” Many people are often embarrassed about their country, just as many people don’t like the idea of being tied to one spouse until death do them part. But, many people – like me – “feel love and a sense of duty and honor” toward their country. Similarly, some people actually do vow to love their spouse, and feel a duty to fulfill that vow. If the two were contradictory, I don’t think the centuries-old wedding ceremony would have tied them together.
September 11, 2010, 12:31 amDebrah says:
And here we have a totally different aspect of human existence and interaction placed on the same plane as a one-on-one personal relationship.
Of course! If you walk down the aisle and take those vows you should work to uphold them.
Very little regarding expression of true emotion “embarrasses” me.
And I’m sure most people understand the feelings of loss when one spouse/lover cheats or chooses to end a marriage or a relationship.
When I decide I love someone I’m very possessive.
But I think some people take that emotion to the nth degree as has the woman in this particular case.
People in a marriage have to decide if they want true love and lust and friendship……or a contractual agreement.
It’s really that simple.
But you can’t force anyone to feel loyalty, love and honor toward another person—or their country, unfortunately.
If You Love Somebody, Set Them Free
September 11, 2010, 1:05 amThatGuy says:
You do realize that the entire NC district court system, having original jurisdiction over all misdemeanors, civil cases under $10,000, and family law cases, is bench trials, probably composing roughly 80% of the docket in the state? You generally have a right to a de novo jury trial in superior court though.
September 11, 2010, 1:13 amAaron says:
Personally, I think tortious interference is also ridiculous.
September 11, 2010, 2:11 amElemenope says:
Personally, I think tortious interference is also ridiculous.
Agree. How can a person who is not party to a contract or agreement be held responsible for the violation of that instrument?
September 11, 2010, 3:22 amAlessandra says:
Well, as a tangential comment, it’s a very old level of scum. The difference is that liberals are now promoting it as quite normal and justified, because they must get their sexual kicks any time and in any situation their mind produces them.
Ethics are not a matter of vows. Vows are the ritualizing of a promise of ethical attitudes and behaviors. If the “other woman” can care less about the hurt and the damage her affair is going to cause to the married woman, she is as much of a scum as the husband. If she didn’t have such a dehumanized attitude towards the married woman, and if she didn’t treat the concept of marriage as a pile of crap, she would not have affairs with married men. There are plenty of single garbage of men around for her to have her deformed, loveless sex with, which liberals promote with such glee. Secondly, if she were to want to have a relationship with a married man, who also could care less about his wife and his marriage, she could ask the guy to divorce and to start a relationship with her. But most people don’t do that, do they?
What’s plain to see is that an increasingly large number of people will throw all of these considerations out the window, and behave like relationship thugs, having no ethics or morality. It’s just the “me, me, me” attitude that prevails. This explains why so many men in particular want both their wives and their affairs. Then there are so many cases where the relationship in the marriage has deteriorated after several years, but the man will not divorce his wife, and chooses instead to begin having affairs. He waits until an affair grows in intensity to then jump ship. And he then complains when his wife gets a lawyer who will try to stick it to him as much as possible.
September 11, 2010, 3:26 amWhat’s Next? | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] This can only be followed by incumbents who lose elections suing their challengers. [...]
September 11, 2010, 3:54 amElemenope says:
Ethics are not a matter of vows. Vows are the ritualizing of a promise of ethical attitudes and behaviors.
You don’t think that making and breaking promises is a compositional element of ethical action? Odd.
September 11, 2010, 5:12 amdearieme says:
When the issue of gay marriage was making the headlines, it did occur to me that given that the divorce rate implies that many Americans (and people in some other countries too) clearly don’t give a hoot about the marriage contract, it might be simpler just to abolish legal recognition of heterosexual marriage.
September 11, 2010, 6:39 amAlessandra says:
It’s not because a person utters some ritual words that they mean it. And you can be ethical without ever pronouncing a particular vow about it.
September 11, 2010, 7:43 amOrenWithAnE says:
And it is utterly unconstitutional for the United States to deny a citizen the right to renounce his allegiance, provided that he shows he has somewhere else to go. The United States survives despite not building walls to keep our citizens in, that alone should be a clue.
Good riddance to ‘em anyway, there’s absolutely no benefit to forcibly keeping someone that would rather be elsewhere.
I am a liberal and I do not promote this as normal or justified. I condemn it as scum.
It’s not the affair that is harmful, though, it is the deception and disloyalty — both violations she has not committed.
But the man in the marriage has made a oath to consider the wellbeing of his spouse as his own. The mistress has not. She is entitled to want things for herself, he vowed to cherish her happiness above all other things. The mistress and the husband are simply not similarly situated here.
And your solution is what, to chain him to the marriage “like it or not”?
On the other hand, you cannot create ethical obligations in third parties without their consent. I cannot promise to sell my neighbor’s car.
September 11, 2010, 9:03 amAlessandra says:
No.
I had posted that people needed to behave according to sincerity and respect in relationships. So instead of exploiting a farce of a marriage, and either completely or partially betraying his wife, the guy needed to be honest and end his marriage first, then start something new. (And the same applies if we reverse the gender roles around).
September 11, 2010, 9:51 amAlessandra says:
On the contrary, they both can choose to behave like scum or not. Just because the mistress wants a television to herself, it does not give her the right to walk in and take the couple’s TV. If she wanted to get some kicks out of sexually abusing the couple’s children, she doesn’t have the right to do so. It’s exactly this harmful and shoddy “me, me, me” attitude that liberals destroy society with. Whether the mistress has made or not a vow doesn’t change the fact that she has no right to think and behave like scum towards other people.
The betrayal factor may be less than the husband’s, but the mistress is still behaving like scum.
September 11, 2010, 9:57 amJoe says:
I don’t see how the (1), if true, isn’t a violation of the 7th Amendment right to jury trial.
The 7A is not applied to the states.
September 11, 2010, 10:00 amChris Travers says:
North Carolina leads the cause of finer points of marrying one’s cousin. First cousins can get married, but double first cousins cannot. I think (IANAL) they are the only state with that rule.
September 11, 2010, 10:53 amChris Travers says:
What struck me about this case in particular is that the plaintiff claimed she used to consider the defendant to be a friend. Oath or not, I think there is a matter of respect owed to the wellbeing of friends assuming that was mutual. This may be a big assumption, but it is worth considering.
If this isn’t enough, then I suggest we bring back blood oaths of friendship.
September 11, 2010, 11:00 amNorthern Dave says:
Yet isn’t that what tortious incitement to breach of contract is?
September 11, 2010, 11:01 amNorthern Dave says:
Sorry meant to add:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=bdvwFeDB_koC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=incitement+to+breach+of+contract&source=bl&ots=0k8B5oleVF&sig=nNfi5VlbcykiTdm_L8-qQe5NldE&hl=en&ei=a5mLTI6ZN6XtnQerjoCEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
as an example.
September 11, 2010, 11:05 amElemenope says:
Yet isn’t that what tortious incitement to breach of contract is?
Yep. Hence my concurrence with it being ridiculous: Merely explaining the concept out loud makes it sound excruciatingly stupid.
September 11, 2010, 11:13 amElemenope says:
It’s not because a person utters some ritual words that they mean it. And you can be ethical without ever pronouncing a particular vow about it.
I agree, but that’s not what I’m asking. What I’m asking is whether you believe that, in the case of an oath or vow, that that structure is ethical in nature? And regardless of whether it is possible to be ethical without resorting to vows and oaths, are they not an important specie of ethical device?
September 11, 2010, 11:15 amChris Travers says:
That’s the attitude I was raised with as a Quaker, btw. The attitude was to take no oaths of any sort because: 1) One’s word should be good enough as it is, and 2) One shouldn’t need a sense of reward or punishment to do the right thing.
With due respect, people can want all sorts of things. What separates folks who do the right thing from those that don’t isn’t so much what they want as how they resolve conflicts between what they want for themselves and others. I can want to have affairs all I want (and I will admit to wanting it sometimes), but it’s not gonna happen, even given any opportunity. There is a fundamental difference in wanting something (no shame in that) and actively pursuing the same (pursuing a clandestine affair is shameful, IMO).
I would also suggest that the distinction between what is good for oneself and what is good for others is very much a false one. In general, if something is bad for others, it is a good indication that it is at least subtly bad for the self too. Unfortunately most people seek comfort rather than bravely facing fears and addressing problems head-on.
September 11, 2010, 11:23 amElemenope says:
The attitude was to take no oaths of any sort because: 1) One’s word should be good enough as it is, and 2) One shouldn’t need a sense of reward or punishment to do the right thing.
It is an interesting perspective, but one may say in response that this merely establishes ethical conduct without oaths or vows as supererogatory, and does not address the practical problem that while it may be a good-in-itself to be ethically upright enough to not need vows to bond one’s word, not everyone can achieve that ethical status. For those who can’t or won’t, it remains of significant utility.
September 11, 2010, 11:27 amSuzy says:
Debrah says, “But you can’t force anyone to feel loyalty, love and honor toward another person—or their country, unfortunately.”
You also can’t force anyone to get married. And you can’t force anyone not to interfere with another person’s marriage by bedding the spouse. I don’t see how any of that is relevant to deciding penalties for someone who does this. Personally, I think what happened in this case is kind of awesome and hilarious! I also remember all the people in the first threads on this case long ago, insisting nothing would come of it.
Alessandra says, “The difference is that liberals are now promoting it as quite normal and justified, because they must get their sexual kicks any time and in any situation their mind produces them.”
Do you seriously believe that “liberals” behave this way, any more than “conservatives” or “libertarians” or any other group? Wow! Now I can’t decide whether to move to NC or become a liberal! Can you give us any estimates on whether the liberals are successful at getting these kicks, or is it only a wish? That could help decide it.
September 11, 2010, 11:31 amChris Travers says:
The Quakers believe anyone is capable of this, btw. I personally have come to value oaths, but I think the Quakers are generally right about their framework and the concerns that lead me to value them are different. (Part of the thing is that Quakers ritually abstain from outward ritual if that makes any sense.)
My view is that oaths are a matter or ritualizing a promise, not necessarily for ethical behavior though. The goal of the oath is to place a promise in a different social mode. For example if a Norse neopagan makes an oath to do something great and drinks to it as a condition for taking inheritance (an old Viking custom), that’s not really a promise for ethical behavior. Instead it is a linking of the act of taking inheritance from a dead relative to the obligation to do something important with it.
It’s much like other ritual. These are more social functions than ethical ones. We great people in a ritual way (“Hi” and a handshake) not because it is ethical to do so, but because it is social to do so. The Quaker viewpoint may be that if someone asks “Hi, how are you?” or “does this dress make me look fat?” one should always answer truthfully (never saying “Fine” or “No, you look fine” when these are just answers for social rituals), but this largely misses the social points of these greetings. We rarely ask people how they are REALLY doing unless we already know.
So I don’t think it is a matter of ethics so much as a matter of shifting social context into a ritualized format.
September 11, 2010, 11:45 amOrenWithAnE says:
We agree entirely on this point.
I suppose I can see this in a sort of ‘accessory or accomplice’ sort of way. What she did was wrong, but it’s a lesser wrong in a sense.
Dante put Cain, Judas and Brutus in the lowest circle of hell for a reason, after all.
I think what we do for our friends is not duty but brotherly love. YMMV.
September 11, 2010, 12:02 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I think there is also utility in communicated what an individual considers obligatory and what they consider supererogatory. After all, there are many differing opinions on which actions fall on which side of the line — it is quite useful to know precisely where another person stands on the matter.
Perhaps once could take the idealized position that human beings should always explicitly agree as to what conduct they are considering obligatory in all relationships. That seems rather far-fetched as a practical matter.
September 11, 2010, 12:10 pmLarryA says:
Somehow I don’t think adultery is that new a problem. Several Bible stories spring to mind, from back when everybody lived strictly by what the Pharasees said was G–s Law.
September 11, 2010, 12:47 pmAlessandra says:
Let’s put this into a concrete context. Are you asking me if saying marriage vows are 1) important, and 2) will the act of exchanging vows impact future behavior of the spouses?
September 11, 2010, 12:51 pmRoyLitmus says:
If traditional marriage is has no rational basis under the law, then marriage as a whole has no rational basis under the law. It is an unconstitutional licensing scheme perpetuated by the government and it should be abolished as public policy
September 11, 2010, 1:04 pmElemenope says:
Let’s put this into a concrete context. Are you asking me if saying marriage vows are 1) important, and 2) will the act of exchanging vows impact future behavior of the spouses?
More 1 than 2, though I’m interested in the answer to both.
September 11, 2010, 1:27 pmAlessandra says:
Personally I think it is a very beautiful ritual, and which is important to me. However, as far as society goes, the challenge will always be how do we get people to think and behave in ethical ways. Whether you externalize and ritualize this promise to act in ethical ways is of relative or no importance, if you cannot produce people who live this out in their lives.
Why is uttering a bunch of words in a false way of any importance? It only sullies the very ideas the words contain.
September 11, 2010, 1:40 pmAlessandra says:
The problem itself is not new. How people think about it, how society reacts to it, what people promote or punish concerning adultery changes considerably throughout history and geography.
September 11, 2010, 1:43 pmAlessandra says:
We can see changes in attitudes and behaviors in the personal sphere according to gender, class, education, ethnicity, age, and a variety of combination of other factors, so why wouldn’t ideology produce differences as well? What you think impacts what you do in life or you haven’t noticed that?
These demographic and profile differences produce different attitudes and behaviors in marriage, hookups, abortion, STDs, drugs, prostitution, etc, so why not concerning adultery?
What is the difference in attitude and behavior between liberals and libertarians concerning adultery, btw? Or between social conservatives and liberals?
September 11, 2010, 1:55 pmChris Travers says:
Personally I think a major part of the problem is that Americans have unrealistic expectations of relationships. For all their beauty, wedding rituals don’t really shift that context very well and are largely disconnected to the rest of society. Our divorce law is broken in terms of an importance of facilitating reconciliation (and thus preventing unnecessary divorce) which also makes the problem worse.
What we need to do is rethink how a lot of all this goes on. Instead of the marriage being the bride’s special day, it needs to be a day where everything is aimed at the transformation of both new spouses. For example, building a tradition like having the bridegroom’s mother prepare the rehearsal dinner with the assistance of the bride would be a good thing. Having the bride’s father and the groom prepare other things and other events together would be another good thing (I dunno, brewing beer for the celebrations? Setting up the space for the event? Something else?).
What I am suggesting is that rather than seeing the wedding as an isolated and short event, one should see it as the interconnected and ongoing event that it is, and expect more participation from inlaws, and more interconnectedness and juxtaposition of roles. We should also revamp divorce law to encourage separating couples who are on good terms with eachother to divorce quickly while providing quite a bit more time to cool off for those who are not. I would suggest further that if the parties disagree over whether the marriage is irretrievably broken, the party which believes it is not should be entitled to ask for a one-time one-year delay in granting the divorce to allow for reconciliation efforts to work.
Let’s make marriage exhausting to enter into (requiring a real as opposed to a token commitment), and difficult to get out of unless both parties agree to part ways on reasonably good terms.
September 11, 2010, 1:59 pmElemenope says:
Why is uttering a bunch of words in a false way of any importance? It only sullies the very ideas the words contain.
That one fails to live up to such words does not mean when they were uttered they were false. I tend to look at the topic of ethics through the lens of Virtue Ethics, which postulates in part that the primary element of ethical action is the priming of the *agent* to recognize proper action in any given circumstances. The only way to do that is practice. Humans ritualize what they wish to elevate, and keep front and center in their minds; saying oaths, and having the weight of the ritual behind it can solemnize the words to the extent that the person is more aware of the duties behind them. Human beings learn to be ethical, and not by following rote rules. Ritual is an important tool in the box for training a mind to internalize a duty or an ethical guideline.
September 11, 2010, 2:12 pmRob Berra says:
As my grandmother often told my mother, “God helps those who help themselves. But God help those caught helping themselves.”
She was usually talking about cookies, I think, but the principle is extensible.
September 11, 2010, 2:23 pmAlessandra says:
But that’s a different scenario. I’m talking about the cases where the vows were uttered in a false way. And there are plenty of people who do that. They say the words because it’s an obligatory ritual. Not that they have much (or any) intention of adhering to the ideas contained in the vows.
And then in the cases where one fails to live up to the vows, if you believed the vows when you made them, what changed? Why break the vows later?
September 11, 2010, 2:26 pmAlessandra says:
These are all very interesting proposals. However, we need even more proposals for what to do in the meantime, that is, when people are single or, afterwards, when divorced. I see as many problems there as for the married folks. If people are taking 15 years longer to get married in the first place, that’s quite a bit of time. And what attitudes and behaviors are played out during all this time?
Then there are the same questions for the divorced folks. So many of them do not want to get married again. It shows that their marriage experience was not very good to begin with and the relationship problems remain largely unsolved.
September 11, 2010, 2:32 pmElemenope says:
But that’s a different scenario. I’m talking about the cases where the vows were uttered in a false way. And there are plenty of people who do that. They say the words because it’s an obligatory ritual. Not that they have much (or any) intention of adhering to the ideas contained in the vows.
Of course those cases do exist. Morally immature agents are likely to mistake the form of ritual for the substance, and fail to take on the duty implied within it; i.e. some people are just selfish and untrustworthy. Neither ritual nor any other sort of external token of promise is completely proof from faithless action. At least, however, in societies that take such external promises seriously, there is a social mechanism for reinforcement (with shaming, shunning, and the like).
September 11, 2010, 3:43 pmOrenWithAnE says:
You are most confused. If it is unconstitutional, it should be abolished as illegal. If it is bad policy, it should be repealed by the legislature.
You are aware that in some households (ahem) the man does most of the cooking right?
September 11, 2010, 4:17 pmElemenope says:
The Quakers believe anyone is capable of this, btw. I personally have come to value oaths, but I think the Quakers are generally right about their framework and the concerns that lead me to value them are different. (Part of the thing is that Quakers ritually abstain from outward ritual if that makes any sense.)
The Quakers never cease to be intriguing (perhaps the most consistently interesting religious movement around), but I do believe they are incorrect about this, an optimistic belief probably informed more by religious idiosyncrasies (a faith in human free choice) than by evidence.
My view is that oaths are a matter or ritualizing a promise, not necessarily for ethical behavior though. The goal of the oath is to place a promise in a different social mode. For example if a Norse neopagan makes an oath to do something great and drinks to it as a condition for taking inheritance (an old Viking custom), that’s not really a promise for ethical behavior. Instead it is a linking of the act of taking inheritance from a dead relative to the obligation to do something important with it.
I would argue it falls in the area of rudimentary ethics, since it is behavior (at least partially) internally regulated by the oathtaker. The oath simply adds a partial external component and often additional social penalties for failing to abide by the object of the oath. Since the oath is taken voluntarily, I would call that moment of deciding to take the oath (rather than the actual ceremony of the oath as it occurs) as the primary ethical dimension of the practice.
It’s much like other ritual. These are more social functions than ethical ones. We great people in a ritual way (“Hi” and a handshake) not because it is ethical to do so, but because it is social to do so. The Quaker viewpoint may be that if someone asks “Hi, how are you?” or “does this dress make me look fat?” one should always answer truthfully (never saying “Fine” or “No, you look fine” when these are just answers for social rituals), but this largely misses the social points of these greetings. We rarely ask people how they are REALLY doing unless we already know.
It is true that many rituals exist for social lubrication rather than some overtly ethical purpose. They tend not to be in the form of oaths or promises, though.
September 11, 2010, 4:28 pmChris Travers says:
Quaker ethics is aspirational rather than descriptive, and it is a series of doctrines rather than dogmas. IOW, we all ave human failings, and none of us will hit our aspirations all the time, but if we look at it as a matter of building discipline in our word and deed, over time we will become closer and will have fewer problems with human weakness. This is bolstered by the inward ritual of silent meeting for worship which is again in part an hour-long exercise in the discipline of listening, both to the voices within the self and to those things that voices within others move them to share.
Quaker religion is also unique in the Christian world in the sense that there is not creed which describes what Quakers believe as a theological matter. You wouldn’t believe how frustrating it was as a kid asking adults “do you believe in the Bible” and getting the response of “I believe there is wisdom in it” as the answer. That answer though, is incomplete, but try as I might I cannot find correct words to complete it in a way that does the understanding justice.
September 11, 2010, 4:45 pmElemenope says:
Quaker ethics is aspirational rather than descriptive, and it is a series of doctrines rather than dogmas. IOW, we all have human failings, and none of us will hit our aspirations all the time, but if we look at it as a matter of building discipline in our word and deed, over time we will become closer and will have fewer problems with human weakness.
Ah, that makes more sense. The aspirational element relieves it of the burden of being slightly disjointed from various lived human experiences. If I framed it thus, that they less *believed* everyone could become ethically whole, and more *hoped* that everyone could do so, would that be inaccurate?
You wouldn’t believe how frustrating it was as a kid asking adults “do you believe in the Bible” and getting the response of “I believe there is wisdom in it” as the answer.
I’d believe it. My parents were (and are) Unitarians, and the conversation went pretty much identically.
September 11, 2010, 5:20 pmwhit says:
you beat me to it. i agree.
September 11, 2010, 5:41 pmwhit says:
the most frustrating thing to me about quakers is the whole pacifism thang.
it’s been consistent since the 1600′s, but it just seems consistently stupid to me. but that’s me.
September 11, 2010, 5:50 pmAnthony says:
The marriage vows have whatever importance is granted to them by those who speak the vows. However, if you then apply for state recognition of those vows, you’re also granting the state the right to enforce those vows.
September 11, 2010, 5:50 pmptt says:
Maybe she was afraid of the high figure and thought NC might still have debtors prisons, too.
September 11, 2010, 5:53 pmCockleCove says:
As a point of information, I’d like to dispel the misunderstanding re: Quaker weddings. The weddings of Friends who belong [not all Friends do] to Meeting Houses that abide by the “unprogrammed” Quaker tradition — no presiding minister, no order of worship, not necessarily an hour-long as Chris suggests — are very different from what most of us are used to. But the couples do pledge a covenant to each other, which is also usually included in the text of the marriage certificate subscribed by all those present. Here’s the typical wording:
In the presence of God and these our friends, I take thee [name] to be my [wife or husband] promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful [wife or husband] so long as we both shall live.
E.g, the Faith and Practice of the New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (2001), pp. 133-34. And see pp. 131-32 for a description of the premarital “clearness” inquiry conducted by the local Meeting:
http://www.nyym.org/quakerism/fnp/fp_12pt.pdf
And now a message from George Fox himself ;-)
September 11, 2010, 6:24 pmmy words should be few,
savoury, and seasoned with grace.
– George Fox, Journal (1694), chapter 1
LarryA says:
And out of all those changes, from heavy prohibition including the death penalty to outright acceptance, the actual behavior changes very little.
Some few people are trustworthy, some few are not. Most of us fall in between.
September 12, 2010, 12:08 amReaderY says:
“Not a family lawyer, and I haven’t consulted any references, but I don’t think you could bring an alienation of affection claim in NC for a SC marriage, even if the affair occurred in NC.”
There’s been extensive litigation on the subject. North Carolina courts have ruled North Carolina has jurisdiction if any part of the affair took place in North Carolina, such as a motel stay or sending emails to or from North Carolina.
September 12, 2010, 12:41 amJohn Thacker says:
If you keep on being logical in this vein, you’ll tie yourself in knots trying to figure out why blackmail should be illegal. After all, how can a person be held responsible for attempting to get someone to voluntarily agree to a contract, when the only threat on offer is the threat to do something entirely legal, i.e., publicly produce factual information?
September 12, 2010, 12:59 amAlessandra says:
So you claim, disregarding any and all data that shows differences.
That’s a completely clueless statement, denying significant adultery rates. Many more than a few people are untrustworthy.
And isn’t calling someone “halfway trustworthy” a lame embellishment of their being untrustworthy?
September 12, 2010, 3:01 amHarvey says:
The suggestion has been made that the adulterer should have sought divorce before committing his adultery. But if the issue is violation of his vow to “love and honor until death,” divorce itself is a violation. The sequence of events matters not.
Perhaps the state is unable to enforce “love,” but it can surely punish the one who fails to honor his commitments, whether it be by adultery or otherwise, e.g. it can find “fault.”
What stability would there be in the commercial world it we allowed “no-fault” violations?
The liberal pursuit of individual pleasure destroys the foundations of human society. When we hear, “Its for the children,” ask about divorce. And when we hear, “We cannot change behavior and must recognize divorce,” see if there are not a thousand other laws successfully regulating social behavior.
September 12, 2010, 11:13 amOrenWithAnE says:
There was a long series of posts on this just recently. The general conclusion was that the illegality of blackmail stems not from the instrument but from the fact that the blackmailer seeks to gain more than he is fairly owed.
They are both violations, one is simply a far worse violation. Telling your spouse frankly that you can no longer uphold your vows is not an honorable thing. Cheating on him behind his back while maintaining the pretense of honoring those vows is much more dishonorable still.
Plus, most of the weddings I’ve been at substitute ‘for as long as our love shall last’, which (at long last) brings the theory directly in line with the practice. I haven’t heard ’till death to us part’ since the last millennium.
September 12, 2010, 12:34 pmCockleCove says:
Sexual infidelity is not the only way of dishonoring one’s marriage vows. Scorn me if you like, but I’ll make no apologies for leaving my husband, then a nascent alcoholic, and taking our son with me. As I told him when he railed at me for breaking my marriage pledge, he had broken his vow to “love, honor, and cherish” me, had emotionally abandoned the marriage, long before I made the decision to seek a divorce.
Would you have had me and my child remain yoked to an alcoholic?
September 12, 2010, 2:30 pmmischief says:
Forced? Anyone legally married in this country dragged the law in. Marriage licenses, divorce courts, and all the fun stuff. People who don’t want their affairs of the heart touched contractual agrements don’t have marry.
September 12, 2010, 3:06 pmAlessandra says:
Certainly not.
However, I think there are other cases where the pendulum swung the other way, where divorce was careless. It seems to me that society, in just a couple of generations, went from one extreme to another, although there exists plenty of cases in between.
The same goes for the non-marriage relationships. So many people view others as something so very disposable or to be exploited to get their sexual kicks from, but without the entire and wholesome attitude of building a future together, where so much more is required and is involved.
I’ve often wondered if society wouldn’t benefit from “relationship education” classes for teens and college-age kids. Maybe it would not be feasible to do it through the education system, given how horribly it is managed and the dominant liberal ideology about sexuality and relationships. Perhaps what would be needed is to use other channels. Not every person is born to parents who will pass on to their children a lot of wisdom about long-term, committed relationships.
September 12, 2010, 3:26 pmThatGuy says:
Thanks for the correction, I’ve honestly never had it come up.
September 12, 2010, 8:35 pmMark M says:
Alienation of affections claims can be brought by either spouse, thanks.
September 13, 2010, 3:09 pmChris Travers says:
The Quaker history and view of pacifism is interesting, but it’s also worth noting that most Quakers I know are against war as a universal principle, but are not necessarily against violence as a universal principle (the latter however is Unquakerly). However, Quakers, like everyone else, sometimes make exceptions to their beliefs and some even served in combat or leadership roles in various wars. Brg. Gen. Nathaniel Greene was a Quaker. There were Quakers who served in the Union army during the Civil War, and those who served in WWII. I don’t know of any in WWI, Korea, or Vietnam though.
Historically, you have to start with the awareness that at the time Quakerism was formed, leaving the church of England was seen as a crime, and early Quakers were even sometimes accused of treason because they were undermining the authority of the Crown. Also remember that England had a series of civil wars over whether Catholics or Protestants would wear the crown. The end result was that the Quakers were largely vulnerable to prosecutions for various things up to and including treason. Nonviolence as a political strategy was looked to as a way of ensuring that it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury to convict Quakers of preparing an armed rebellion against the King and against the Church of England.
Over time, however, what has developed is that what was originally a survival tactic became well integrated with other aspects of Quaker life and worship. What replaces physical violence in self defence situations is a different approach, one based on listening and dialog, which is basically an extension of the Quaker worship process. That sounds like it shouldn’t work often but it actually works very well for people who have been involved in Quakerism for a long time. It’s not something for beginners though.
Paradoxically, in the Quaker circles I have generally been in, there have been a far higher percentage of martial artists than in the population at large. In general, most Quakers I have met do not feel that studying martial arts is incompatible with Quakerism.
I wouldn’t call it consistently stupid. I reject nonviolence but because my experience is that nonviolent resistance in some cases is more damaging to the target than violent resistance. In particular, my experience on the receiving end of a fairly pervasive campaign of domestic violence in 1997-1998 convinced me that my non-violence in that case was a contributing factor (in the sense of furthering a guilt-frustration-violence cycle). My own personal view is that responses should be generally respectful and compassionate, and that the choice of violence or nonviolence should follow from those principles.
Indeed my experience in applying non-violent methods prior to 1998 was that when used well, they were the most powerful methods of resistance available. But they work by inflicting social costs and psychological pain instead of physical pain. As a response to DV, they suck. As a response to an assault by a street gang or random criminal, they work.
September 13, 2010, 3:42 pmChris Travers says:
I think you have to look at this against the overall framework of Quakerism, which presupposes, if you will, a personal and experiential relationship with what the early Quakers would have called Christ (and many still do, and even those who do not would use only slightly attenuated references to Christ in that framework). That personal relationship, not the label of it or the theology supporting it, is what Quakers seek and expect others to seek and find whether or not they are Quakers or even Christians. Quakers do not see atheism for example as precluding this, although they would generally expect Atheists to refer to the experiences differently. (Yes, you can be a Quaker and an Atheist even, and I have known Neopagans who were also Quakers.) Quakers generally thus reject outward rituals and replace them with inward rituals (silent listening, meditation, etc), and reject outward creeds seeking inward experience instead. The issue here is not “have you accepted Christ as your personal savior?” but rather the subtly different issue of “do you seek to do to witness the divine within yourself, and to live your life as a testament to it?”
Against this framework what we generally see is that the ethical aspirations are designed to function as templates for one’s life in actions and are generally presented almost in the form of traditional mythology. Speaking the truth, much like meditation, is a spiritual or religious discipline rather than the failure to do so being a sin. Quakers in general at least in my experience are paradoxically very much focused on the transcendent, but at the same time very much rejecting the idea that we should live based on promises of divine rewards here or in the afterlife. (The attitude towards the afterlife that most Quakers seem to have is that we will find out when we get there.) Quakers I have met have all felt without exception that the experience of the divine is reward enough.
So I don’t think a Quaker would condemn a non-Quaker for taking an oath. Non-Quakers have their own traditions and their own ways of relating to this divine light within the self, and this is recognized by Quakers. But Quakers would say that oaths are not the Quaker way, and that Quakers should follow Christ’s admonitions on that topic.
September 13, 2010, 4:48 pmohwilleke says:
Illinois has limited its tort to economic damages, removing non-economic damages (pain and suffering) and punitive damages from the remedy.
The standard of proof of innocence on the part of both spouses in Hawaii and New Mexico has disfavored the tort to the extent that it is virtually impossible to prove and can be defeated on motions to dismiss supported by affidavits, or by motions for summary judgment, in each case fairly easily.
The tort does appear to be viable and continues to be actively litigated with a lenient liability standard in South Dakota, where general limits on punitive damages and insurance coverage make the awards less sensational, and in Utah, where there is an intermediate standard of liability that tends to find causation of harm mostly in situations where positions of trust are violated and it makes clear that the cause of action need not involve sex or an affair.
September 13, 2010, 8:05 pmElemenope says:
@ Chris Travers
That was quite illuminating. Thanks. :)
September 13, 2010, 9:32 pmrufusmcbufus says:
It’s very simple, really. North Carolina is full of savages.
September 15, 2010, 12:53 am-rufus
DrTravel says:
I love the case and the judgment.
September 17, 2010, 1:11 amI really would THINK TWICE before I messed around with someone’s spouse.
It is about having character and exercising some discretion.
I would feel the same way if a man were the alleged victim.
Malcolm Smith says:
May I suggest two further developments would be appropriate.
September 22, 2010, 4:53 am(1) North Carolina should publicise its alienation of affection laws more intensely. It is obvious that a lot of wronged spouses are not aware of their rights.
(2) All the other states should adopt it.
Breaking up someone’s marriage is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and adulterers ought to be aware that they do so at their perild.