Did you see this?

Socrtease

Verified User
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3789033

A messy divorce that set off a bizarre lawsuit pitting a plumber against a Mississippi millionaire could now be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sandra Valentine had been married to plumber Johnny Valentine for four years when she began working for Holly Springs, Miss., businessman Jerry Fitch Sr.

Within a year, Sandra and Fitch, who was also married, began an affair. When Sandra got pregnant, Johnny, who suspected she was cheating, ordered a paternity test, which showed he was not the father.

Johnny filed for divorce and then sued Fitch, claiming "alienation of affection," or, in other words, stealing his wife's love.

Johnny won more than $750,000 in state court, but Fitch wants the Supreme Court to step in and limit the claim.

Fitch said he shouldn't have to pay $112,000 in punitive damages, citing an earlier high court decision that overturned state sodomy laws in 2003. He is not contesting the rest of the judgment.

Law Says a Wife Is Husband's Property
Mississippi is one of only seven states that still allow lawsuits over claims of "spousal theft." The others are Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Mississippi.

The law essentially says that a wife is a man's property, a notion many women, including Sandra Valentine, find offensive.

"I don't consider myself property," Sandra said Monday on "Good Morning America." "Not Johnny's, not anyone's. Just my own."

Her husband has claimed their marriage was fine until Sandra went to work for Fitch, which she denied.

"No that's not true, Johnny had gambling problem," Sandra said. "It took a period of about six years to destroy our marriage."

She said she did not leave the marriage earlier because of her children.

Johnny Valentine and his attorney would not comment because the case is still pending in the courts.

It's been reported that Fitch is worth $22 million, which he denied today on "GMA." Fitch said he was worth "a whole lot less that that, a whole lot."

Fitch also said that the case was about principle, not just the money.

"This alienation of affection law is only in seven states in the United States now," he said. "It needs to be off the books. This is not right."

Sandra said, however, that she believes the lawsuit is about one thing for her ex-husband.

"Just the money," she said. "He had already alienated my affection with gambling, so the marriage was already over before I met Jerry. So he's wrong."
 
And the characterization of "the law says that the woman is property of the man" is bullshit. It may have historical roots in that mindset but the truth is, it is designed to punish a person for knowingly interfering with the marriage contract. A woman could JUST AS EASILY use this legal resoning to sue the lover of her husband that wrecked their marriage. I saw her lawyer on the TV the other day and he said that the law unduly affected women like Mrs. Fitch. I thought "You're right!" It affects all cheating tramps (and cheating bastards) just the same! If you don't want it to affect you, divorce the person FIRST then fuck the other guy. Otherwise, shut up and quit whinning. And honestly the woman in this didn't suffer a bit. It was the guy that knowingly had an affair with her, impregnated her and then they both lied about it. If she had divorced him without telling him the child was not his, the ex-husband would have been on the hook for child support for the other guys kid till the child was 18.
 
Should paternitity tests be a prerequisite for requiring child support ?
Unless of course the child was adopted.
 
Paternity tests are NOT required if the parties are married. In fact, the presumption is that a child born during the marriage is OF the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable but if a man does not know then he gets stuck. Doesn't happen often but our office has two cases where a child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that. Personally I would give the guy a five dollar bill and tell him to go get a decent piece of ass, but for some people, the marriage was very important to them and the person that wrecked it should have to pay for wrecking it.
 
Paternity tests are NOT required if the parties are married. In fact, the presumption is that a child born during the marriage is OF the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable but if a man does not know then he gets stuck. Doesn't happen often but our office has two cases where a child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that. Personally I would give the guy a five dollar bill and tell him to go get a decent piece of ass, but for some people, the marriage was very important to them and the person that wrecked it should have to pay for wrecking it.

How hard is it to prove who wrecked it? If the wife says he did because of his gambling and that his addiction and lack of attention led her to seek comfort elsewhere.... yada yada yada.

Just asking here, because I haven't personally heard of a case like this before where the third party gets sued.
 
Would be a lot less cheating if spouses were legally allowed to shoot the other half if caught cheating.
 
Paternity tests are NOT required if the parties are married. In fact, the presumption is that a child born during the marriage is OF the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable but if a man does not know then he gets stuck. Doesn't happen often but our office has two cases where a child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that. Personally I would give the guy a five dollar bill and tell him to go get a decent piece of ass, but for some people, the marriage was very important to them and the person that wrecked it should have to pay for wrecking it.

This coming from a lawyer. :rollseyes:

I heard about women suing for this before, however. The whole part in the article about the wife being property of the husband is just a ridiculous attempt to slander the concept.
 
Paternity tests are NOT required if the parties are married. In fact, the presumption is that a child born during the marriage is OF the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable but if a man does not know then he gets stuck. Doesn't happen often but our office has two cases where a child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that. Personally I would give the guy a five dollar bill and tell him to go get a decent piece of ass, but for some people, the marriage was very important to them and the person that wrecked it should have to pay for wrecking it.

Wow.

Yeah, I've been in love. No third party on earth can "wreck" that. That gets wrecked from within.

I think suing a third party is misplaced anger and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week.
 
How hard is it to prove who wrecked it? If the wife says he did because of his gambling and that his addiction and lack of attention led her to seek comfort elsewhere.... yada yada yada.

Just asking here, because I haven't personally heard of a case like this before where the third party gets sued.

I've heard of it, but it was the other woman who was sued.
 
:P

Breaking up a marriage causes a lot of phychological harm. If someone actively pursues a person they know is married, and causes a breakup of the marriage, are they not in anyone responsible for the emotional harm to that person?

If, for instance, you're already having maritial problems, and one of the partners goes out searching for someone else, then the other partner wouldn't be able to sue. You're oversimplifying the issues, Darla.
 
:P

Breaking up a marriage causes a lot of phychological harm. If someone actively pursues a person they know is married, and causes a breakup of the marriage, are they not in anyone responsible for the emotional harm to that person?

If, for instance, you're already having maritial problems, and one of the partners goes out searching for someone else, then the other partner wouldn't be able to sue. You're oversimplifying the issues, Darla.

No. I've been actively pursued while in a monogamous ltr. It really is this simple; you can't be tempted to leave someone you love who loves you back.

That's an excuse a man might use to be forgiven for a one night stand or a fling, and maybe it could even hold up, though I wouldn't accept it. He is still responsible to my mind. Either way, you would not leave the relationship unless you wanted out, and long before you met the third party.

You have to take responsibility for your own relationship. Not blame it on someone else. Nature abhors a vacuum and will struggle to fill it. So do humans.
 
Paternity tests are NOT required if the parties are married. In fact, the presumption is that a child born during the marriage is OF the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable but if a man does not know then he gets stuck. Doesn't happen often but our office has two cases where a child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that. Personally I would give the guy a five dollar bill and tell him to go get a decent piece of ass, but for some people, the marriage was very important to them and the person that wrecked it should have to pay for wrecking it.

As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that

I don't.

The only people who are responsible to hold to their vows, are the people that got married. Third parties aren't responsible for honoring those vows. No one leaves a marriage because of temptation. That's phony. They leave because they don't want to be in it. If you really love someone, you're not going to leave them.
 
Wow.

Yeah, I've been in love. No third party on earth can "wreck" that. That gets wrecked from within.

I think suing a third party is misplaced anger and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week.
I have been in love too and when the relationship is going bad couples are supposed to talk about it and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week than cheating on your spouse. You are giving this woman a free pass for cheating Darla and deciding that she must be right that it was his gambling that caused all this. If she didn't have the gnads to belly up to a therapist or a divorce attorney BEFORE fucking around then the third parties beware.
 
I have been in love too and when the relationship is going bad couples are supposed to talk about it and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week than cheating on your spouse. You are giving this woman a free pass for cheating Darla and deciding that she must be right that it was his gambling that caused all this. If she didn't have the gnads to belly up to a therapist or a divorce attorney BEFORE fucking around then the third parties beware.

OK, so blame her then. She chose to look outside her marriage. That "alienation of affection" concept seems to assume that the person (woman or man) was "enticed" away from the relationship and is not an adult, and has no mind or will of his/her own by which to decide what to do, therefore was easy prey for the third party. That's ridiculous.
 
I have been in love too and when the relationship is going bad couples are supposed to talk about it and you'd be much better off talking to a therapist every week than cheating on your spouse. You are giving this woman a free pass for cheating Darla and deciding that she must be right that it was his gambling that caused all this. If she didn't have the gnads to belly up to a therapist or a divorce attorney BEFORE fucking around then the third parties beware.

But shouldn't that be the responsibility of the cheating party and not the one with whom they cheat?

This just seems way to damn weird to be suing a third person for the breakup of a marriage. It is the result of either the husband or the wife. In this case it appears to be that both had a hand in it.
 
As for suing for alienation of affection...you bet your ass I think people should be allowed to sue for that

I don't.

The only people who are responsible to hold to their vows, are the people that got married. Third parties aren't responsible for honoring those vows. No one leaves a marriage because of temptation. That's phony. They leave because they don't want to be in it. If you really love someone, you're not going to leave them.
This is crap. We give businesses the right to sue for tortious interference with a contract if a third party comes in and disrupts a contractual relationship between other businesses. marriage is a contract no different than that but with more serious consequences when
a third party knowingly interfers. Shit people get killed over this sort of thing. And do you think she would have divorced him if she hadn't been involved with her MILLIONAIRE boss? Do you think the millionaire boss didn't say "Go ahead and leave him baby. I can take care of you." But her working for someone that makes less than her hubby did and she may have screwed him but she would have NEVER left her husband for him.
 
Back
Top