Man Sues his wife's lover

[pam]

I didn't know this but Utah is one of only 7 states that allows for "alienation of affection" claims.

Riverton man sues his wife's lover | ksl.com-

[classylady]

Wow! I had never heard of this before. Very interesting.

[applepansy]

I would like to see more of this. Breaking up a family is wrong. Both the wife and her lover should be sued. Even when divorce is the right thing to do (in cases of abuse etc) it cases heartbreak and division and more heartbreak especially when there are children. Money can't take away the hurt but it can help replace the physical support the offending spouse/lover inflicts on a family.

Several weeks ago I saw a news article stating that only 51% of adult Americans are married. Affairs are only one way families are broken but I think its one of the most insidious.

[Martain]

We are taught that life liberty and property are the unalienable rights of all.

While Latter-day Saints know that we are accountable before God for the use of our body, as an adult male, I have sole legal ownership of the property known as myself.

Does not a husband say, "She is MY wife and I am HER husband" and the wife say, "He is MY husband and I am HIS wife"? Is this not due to the contract made when a man and woman enter into marriage? Don't spouses have claim upon the time, talents and affections of each other?

While you originally had sole ownership of your self, isn't marriage a contract of mutual co-ownership?

In regards to alimony and child support, isn't this the way the law sees it?

If you can feel comfortable with the idea of marriage being a contract of mutual co-ownership, then wouldn't adultery be theft?

Theft is illegal and punishable by the law.

Anyone see any conceptual problems with this line of thinking?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Martain

[pam]

Martain, while I can agree somewhat with your statement, I think the some of the general public don't see it as a contract. Yes they sign the paperwork and yes they say the words during the ceremony. But to many that's just a formality.

Kind of like when people break the rules here. Yes they agreed to the terms and conditions and rules of the site, but they didn't read them. They only clicked on the little box to continue the registration process. Then will cry that they didn't realize they broke rules.

[Dravin]

The great block you are going to run into with conceptualizing marriage as ownership of the other in a legal sense is the objection to conceptualizing people as property. While I agree with the sentiment that me and my wife are 'owned' by the other (and linked in other ways) to make that a legal concept is something even I shy away from. That one is owed as part of marriage certain attentions and obligations avoids that barrier and as you point out is how the law sees it in the case of things like alimony.

Kind of like when people break the rules here. Yes they agreed to the terms and conditions and rules of the site, but they didn't read them. They only clicked on the little box to continue the registration process. Then will cry that they didn't realize they broke rules.

Also people weigh laws/rules differently, and plenty of people seem to feel that the contract is automatically voided if they feel needs aren't being met*. Hollywood at least gives that impression if your spouse is a jerk or otherwise distant you're justified in perusing a relationship on the side. It's a subset of the "'Love' justifies all" mentality you run into.

*Or to put it in .net terms, that their goals justify the means. A classic example is the anti-Mormon out to save us, they feel their goal, saving all us poor Mormons, is worth violating the rules they agreed to.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Dravin

[Gwen]

I can see the validity and usefulness of this, as well as the possible extensions of this law applicable to the children involved. Especially where parents or step parents try to alienate a child from their other parent.

Totally agree with this part

"Defendant's pattern of conduct pursuing (the wife) and the illicit affair intentionally or recklessly caused foreseeable harm to plaintiff and the children," the lawsuit states. "At all times defendant knew that his conduct was targeted, certain and inevitable to alienate the affection of (wife) toward plaintiff and the children."

However, even with all of that I see some possible troubling extensions as well. This bothers me

"At all times during the affair, defendant knew that plaintiff was entitled to the lawful, natural and conjugal rights and privileges with his spouse, which included, but are not limited to love, companionship, services, income and comfort that form the foundation of a marriage,"

Could he also turn around and sue the wife for denying him his "entitled ... conjugal rights". Why not put the responsibility where it belongs, with her. But if a man can sue his wife/ex for having an affair then why not for saying no? She could deny him his "rights" without having an affair. But then you bring up the question of if one is "entitled" to "conjugal rights" with their spouse then there can be no such thing as rape within a marriage. Which throws us back into an era of oppression I'm not sure we want to entertain.

[Guest gopecon]

I don't think this is a productive way to solve the problem, and I also don't agree with Martain's reasoning. A contract with someone does not make them one's property. My wife is not the only person I refer to as "mine". There are MY kids, MY parents, MY siblings, MY boss, MY bishop, etc. None of these are my property in the sense that they can be stolen from me (there is kidnapping, but that is a separately defined crime). While I don't condone "homewreckers", the homewrecker is not the one breaking the covenant/contract of marriage. The person most at fault is the one who had the most responsibility for the marriage - not the outsider.

[Jennarator]

I love that this guy is sueing. I normally hate lawsuits, but i do think this one needs to be an example. I am sick of cheaters.

[Guest]

There's really a much simpler way to address this issue legally.

Make adultery illegal - a crime even. All marriages have to be dissolved before any spouse can engage in an intimate relationship with another person. Liability lies in both the adulterous spouse and the lover. A lover can try to prove he/she has no knowledge of the marital status of his/her partner if he/she wants to wiggle out of it.

Done.

[Jennarator]

I could be very wrong, however I think there are some states where adultry is ilegal. Anyone know?

[Guest]

I could be very wrong, however I think there are some states where adultry is ilegal. Anyone know?

Most states actually have criminal adultery laws. The definition and penalty for adultery varies in every State. But, because of a Federal Supreme Court ruling on personal privacy of sexual relations between 2 consenting adults, State laws have no teeth - it's kinda like what happened to the States anti-abortion laws - it became un-prosecutable due to Supreme Court's ruling on medical privacy. The only place where adultery matters now is in divorce proceedings.

[jayanna]

In the US military adultry is a chargeable offense, but there is an unspoken "don't ask, don't tell" policy, so even though it can be enforced it won't be when people look the other way. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the social acceptance. It is bad examples of it romanticized in the media, etc.

[Dravin]

In the US military adultry is a chargeable offense, but there is an unspoken "don't ask, don't tell" policy, so even though it can be enforced it won't be when people look the other way. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the social acceptance. It is bad examples of it romanticized in the media, etc.

It should be noted there is no adultery charge in the USCMJ but rather such actions, if they were to be prosecuted, would fall under General Article 134 (I suppose General Article 133 if an officer is a possibility too) unless I'm mistaken.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Dravin