Then how does someone in a state that has abolished there alienation of affection laws sue the OP?

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. (IIED) There is a statute of limitations, which vary state to state. IIED is difficult to prove, though. A few things help:

1. Plaintiff has to prove distress, by either producing psych records, medical records, etc., showing ongoing emotional issues directly attributable to the A.
2. Plaintiff has to prove that the failure of their M was directly attributable to the A.
3. Plaintiff has to prove that the defendant's conduct would be considered "outrageous" by most people in a civilized society. Prevailing judicial attitudes toward adultery is that it is not severe enough to be considered outrageous.
4. Plaintiff has to prove that the defendant conducted the A to directly cause emotional distress to the plaintiff. For example, calling the BS and telling them that he/she just had sex with the plaintiff's wife.

The distress would have to be considered severe. For example, suicide attempts by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has left notes attributing the suicide to the A, and the attempt must be documented by medical professionals. It is not enough to be upset about the A.

Again, the intent of the defendant would have to be to directly cause distress to the plaintiff. Another example: Defendant pulls into plaintiff's driveway with plaintiff's wife and honks the horn to get the plaintiff's attention. When he knows he has plaintiff's attention, defendant begins 'making out' with plaintiff's wife.

It is very costly to pursue IIED and difficult to prove. Just being pissed and wanting to 'get back' at the OP will be an expensive process that may result in a counter-claim, and will more than likely be dismissed anyway.

But Canada is not nearly as sue-happy as the US and some things just won't fly at all. Sure, you can sue if you want, but it will likely get thrown out of court. Suing for attourny fees is not the same as AOA at all.

Interestingly, this story appeared today: http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/741588

It is about a woman suing the insurance agency that the OW worked for when the A began. It is a very interesting angle - I hope she wins. I actually know of the company her WXH owns and I can tell you, the stuff I know is not very flattering to them - and that's aside from this particular lawsuit. I'll be following this story for sure!

Tabby, do you know if they are divorcing? Reconciling? Sounds like they're apart but not divorced. Are the APs still together?

I have no idea. It doesn't say in the article but they sure don't appear to be reconciling and so far, the OW has been ordered to pay the BW's legal fees, but those likely have to do with her suit against the insurance company, not her WH. I'm going to talk to my friend who dealt with the WH's company and find out if he knows the guy or not. He was on his condo board when they fired the WH's property management company so he may have dealt with the WH directly at some point.

I know that, in Mississippi, the marriage must have ENDED in divorce before you have a case for AOA.

Migsamac, since you are still in your marriage, you might ought to check with an attorney on whether you can sue, even within the 3 years statute of limitations.

Just on the off-chance that she does come after your H for child support, it might be a good idea to put the monthly child support amount into a savings account, just in case.

Mulan


Eggszagley. Weddings are all about "I caught one, I caught one, look at what I caught. Nana, nana boo boob. Wanna catch the bouquet?" Shades of bodice rippers, it is all about the chase and nothing about the living.

Larry

Here's the link I was originally pointed to....
http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/u...er=2341351&what=showflat&fpart=1


WOW...that's a new line.....

Raise your hand if your WS told you that one??....

Raise your hand if the OP told you that one???....

yes for me on BOTH questions....


well THAT is certainly admirable....


Ummmmm....Mr. Shackleford, wouldn't those problems possibly, MAYBE have been your MULTIPLE OW'S?????.....

Nothing like foggbabble in PRINT!!!!!

not2fun

Lady Clueless

I will check with a lawyer on this.

And we are putting $$$ away in a SEPARATE account each month just in case. I hope to have a nice sum built up in 17.5 years or so.

Thanks for the advice!

I'd love to sue OW. I can see it now -- Repo Man taking away all her Mary Kay cosmetics. Cosmetics purchased on MY credit card... and I have the statements to prove it!

I know what you mean, HH. Very early after d-day, when I first made contact with OWH, he told me one of the things he found was a receipt for 4 new tires for OW's car purchased on WXH's credit card. I didn't even think to ask him for it at the time. Stupid me.

I did have to take WXH to small claims court and I *could* have taken OW with him. If you recall my tax refund situation (my refund was deposited in his account and he wouldn't give it back), that account is held in joint with OW. I was 99.99% sure of it at the time and even considered naming her on the suit. However, I would have had to make some attempt to get the money from her as well (i.e. called her up and asked and/or sent her letters). On the one hand, she may have caved if I'd asked her directly. But I really didn't want to have to deal with her and I knew that the judge would rule in my favour if I faced WXH alone as it would be obvious that HE was the vindictive one for hanging on to the money. FWIW, I did confirm that her name is on that account when he finally paid up with a check from it.

I wonder if we will ever see a case where there are 2 BS and they both sue...would it be a wash? Is one AP's affection more valuable than another's?