WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Mississippi businessman must pay more than 750,000 dollars in damages to the man whose wife he wooed away, after the US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in the case.

In 1997, Sandra Valentine began working for Jerry Fitch, a wealthy realtor and successful businessman.

When she gave birth to a daughter two years later, it quickly became apparent that her boss -- not her plumber husband -- was the baby's father.

The couple divorced a short time later, after legal proceedings in which she acknowledged an adulterous relationship with Fitch, whom she tied the knot with a short time later.

But armed with the admission of adultery, betrayed ex-husband Johnny Valentine decided to sue Fitch, based on an antiquated Mississippi state law permitting a cuckolded spouse to seek damages for "loss of society, companionship, love and affection," as well as "the loss of sexual relations."

About a half dozen US states have similar "alienation of affection" laws on the book.

The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict awarding some 750,000 dollars to Valentine.
750,000 dollars in damages for cuckolded husband - Yahoo! News

FYI: cuckold: a man whose wife committed adultery (I had to look it up... )

I am not a fan of the modern trend for "easy divorce".
Furthermore, this type of law-suit almost seems inconsistent for the general trend of "no fault divorce".

This law (as described in the article) leads to a situation where the ACTUAL WIFE involved sees no penalty for her adultery, but the OTHER MAN whom she committed the adultery with gets hit hard.
The wife broke the marital vows. The man "did not". (Or at least no vows that HE took.)

IMO, I would be more inclined to see a smaller settlement, and a consistent revival of "fault" divorce.

Good point...

When it comes to cheating, FULL blame...and I'm even including people who knew the person was in a relationship...goes to the person cheating...

Unless this was done at gunpoint, it's the woman who is to blame here...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Actually, the fault rests on the third party when it comes to an "alienation of affection" suit. It is the contention of the suit that the third party invaded the bounds of the marriage and instigated emotional damage that resulted in the divorce.

It makes perfect sense that a civil suit would target the third party rather than what is supposed to be a constituent part of a whole (meaning the other spouse).

You're only speaking from a legal standpoint...

The "bounds of marriage" are "un-invadable" unless the spouse allows it happen...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I know that...and you know that. The law doesn't see it that way, though. It goes all the way back to the precedent set by "emotional damages" being awarded. Besides, exactly where is this husband going to seek damages from by suing his own wife?

I would think that would already be included in the divorce proceedings and not a civil lawsuit of someone else afterward...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Exactly!

If the third party can be held accountable for "invading" (like that word) the marriage bed, then the cheating spouse should be held accountable for "inviting" the invasion.

The cheating spouse would be held accountable in the divorce proceedings, but in this day and age the cheating of the cheating spouse is often ignored. It's a non-issue with regards to division of assets, countable (in many states) only towards justification for the divorce.
The accountability would be in the form of fiduciary penalty, like a reduction in share in the division of assets or similar penalty.

Furthermore, opening this door opens even more potential accountability for the cheating spouse.
If the cheating spouse lied or mislead the third party which is now sued, and damages are brought against the third party, can't that make the cheating spouse liable for "fraud" (from the view-point of the third party)?
Or at least a legal argument could be made along those lines...

I may be mistaken, and anyone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think alienation of affection originally came about because of the loss of consortium tort that can be applied when a wife loses a husband's ability to "perform" due to injury or death. If I am correct, then it makes sense that the suit would be third party.

If it is proven that the defendant of an alienation of affection tort had no knowledge of nor acted maliciously to destroy a marriage, the suit is nullified and so the defendant could not seek damages that were not incurred from the lying spouse.

Here's where it can go VERY awry...

If a third party is guilty of alienation of a spouse, then can he/she be held accountable for ATTEMPT also?...

If it's his/her fault for succeeding, then it should be also true of the same intentions even if he/she failed...

I don't see too much of a difference between "You honor, he ruined my marriage" and "Your honor, he TRIED to ruin my marriage."...

The intent is by the third party is equal...

So if this law can be used for alienation, it could (should) also be used for attempted alienation...

(Not agreeing with the law, but stringing it out to logical conclusions)...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd