750,000 dollars in damages for cuckolded husband

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

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.

Fitch, who decried the verdict as unconstitutional, "antiquated" and based on "medieval notions" about marriage and property, appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court which refused to overturn the verdict.

His appeal of last resort failed on Monday when the US Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Nessa 23]

[almaty 19]

lol...i could get rich being a professional witness in some of these cases

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I watched an episode of Dr. Phil during the holiday break about a similar case. There's a man who has become an advocate for men who've been paying child support for children their wive's had from adulterous affairs. I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

[almaty 19]

I watched an episode of Dr. Phil during the holiday break about a similar case. There's a man who has become an advocate for men who've been paying child support for children their wive's had from adulterous affairs. I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

i agree totally

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

Yep. There is no excuse for it and also whoever the potential father is should be put on notice. If she didn't want to clean up her mess, she shouldn't have made it in the first place. Easy enough to keep the pants on, skirt unhiked. No sympathy from me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

Yep. There is no excuse for it and also whoever the potential father is should be put on notice. If she didn't want to clean up her mess, she shouldn't have made it in the first place. Easy enough to keep the pants on, skirt unhiked. No sympathy from me.

With one case, the husband had raised the daughter for about 12 years, believing the daughter was his own, so it gets sticky. He and his wife then divorced - then a DNA test was done and it was confirmed that he was not the biological father. Some courts have ruled that under such circumstances, the man has assumed the role of father of the child - the father and child have a real parent/child relationship, and therefore the man is required to continue supporting that child. What I think is unjust is that currently, there are no legal consequences for the mothers who have deliberately deceived those men. There needs to be legislation that makes these women liable for financial as well as emotional damages.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Heracles 417]

I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

Yep. There is no excuse for it and also whoever the potential father is should be put on notice. If she didn't want to clean up her mess, she shouldn't have made it in the first place. Easy enough to keep the pants on, skirt unhiked. No sympathy from me.

With one case, the husband had raised the daughter for about 12 years, believing the daughter was his own, so it gets sticky. He and his wife then divorced - then a DNA test was done and it was confirmed that he was not the biological father. Some courts have ruled that under such circumstances, the man has assumed the role of father of the child - the father and child have a real parent/child relationship, and therefore the man is required to continue supporting that child. What I think is unjust is that currently, there are no legal consequences for the mothers who have deliberately deceived those men. There needs to be legislation that makes these women liable for financial as well as emotional damages.

Exactly. I cannot even start to comprehend how some guy in that situation feels. If someone I loved pulled that over me for 12 years, restitution would come in the form of Russian hit men.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

I think these wives should be held liable if they withold the fact that the child may not be the husband's.

Yep. There is no excuse for it and also whoever the potential father is should be put on notice. If she didn't want to clean up her mess, she shouldn't have made it in the first place. Easy enough to keep the pants on, skirt unhiked. No sympathy from me.

With one case, the husband had raised the daughter for about 12 years, believing the daughter was his own, so it gets sticky. He and his wife then divorced - then a DNA test was done and it was confirmed that he was not the biological father. Some courts have ruled that under such circumstances, the man has assumed the role of father of the child - the father and child have a real parent/child relationship, and therefore the man is required to continue supporting that child. What I think is unjust is that currently, there are no legal consequences for the mothers who have deliberately deceived those men. There needs to be legislation that makes these women liable for financial as well as emotional damages.

ita

[eric&gen 0]

[Amby 490]

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I swear I saw this in a Liftetime movie years ago.... but it was a man's wife suing the other woman.

[almaty 19]

wow, $750,000 ..She must be world class

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

wow, $750,000 ..She must be world class

voodoo poonany.