# Opinions Please



## BigLiam (May 2, 2012)

Would it be possible, from a legal standpoint, to sue an XWS for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress?

And, in a situation where a woman had an OM's child, and defrauded one of years of child support, is there any legal remedy to recover the $$. Thanks


----------



## blueskies30 (Jan 27, 2010)

I'm sure you would need to contact a child custody type lawyer for this matter
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

I don't believe there is any. Imminent legal recourse for what you're talking about.

I wish there were.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

Keep an eye out on the paternity fraud front, there's slow (too slow) progress being made in this case, but progress nontheless. (in the UK anyhow - but once through it usually spreads all over)


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Your best bet would be to consult a laywer practicing family law in your own state/country.


----------



## BigLiam (May 2, 2012)

I read one article discussing the difficulty in bringing such a calim against an OM. Apparently , in many cases, these are thrown out as just ebing similar to alienation of affection suits, which most states have abolished.
But, some cases against the OM have been successful, where the OM's conduct was directed against the BS(taunting, threatening etc) or when the OM or OW had some type of special duty to the BS, such as a mutual therapist or clergy banging the WS.
But, I could find littel on a suit against the WS by the BS. 
It seems to me that it might be possible both on a contract theory and a tort theory, since there were expicit vows(an agreement) and reliance on the vows(for the contract theory).
For the tort theory, the fact that there is a fiduciary duty owed to the spouse would seem to make it possible.
THE REALLY DISTURBING THING ABOUT THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED is that most were dismissed because the court felt that adultery does not constitute sufficientlyoutrageous condduct, a neccessary element of the tort.
Just goes to show how the general public, and judges, have minimized this behavior. It is disgusting, What could be more outrageous than cheating on one's spouse?


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BigLiam said:


> I read one article discussing the difficulty in bringing such a calim against an OM. Apparently , in many cases, these are thrown out as just ebing similar to alienation of affection suits, which most states have abolished.
> But, some cases against the OM have been successful, where the OM's conduct was directed against the BS(taunting, threatening etc) or when the OM or OW had some type of special duty to the BS, such as a mutual therapist or clergy banging the WS.
> But, I could find littel on a suit against the WS by the BS.
> It seems to me that it might be possible both on a contract theory and a tort theory, since there were expicit vows(an agreement) and reliance on the vows(for the contract theory).
> ...


Yes. Most of these cases are difficult. It depends on the state though. Some states actually support such suits. I read of one I believe in north carolina where a spouse got $3 million from her husband's wealthy mistress for some similar suit. 

Still, most of these cases cost a fortune to litigate and there may be no money left after legal fees. 

Most attorneys say they will not take such cases now because they are unethical given the costs. 

Unless you live in a state that allows such suits, it will likely be dismissed.


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

I have heard of the OM being named in the divorce papers when the BH filed and served WW.


----------



## BigLiam (May 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Yes. Most of these cases are difficult. It depends on the state though. Some states actually support such suits. I read of one I believe in north carolina where a spouse got $3 million from her husband's wealthy mistress for some similar suit.
> 
> Still, most of these cases cost a fortune to litigate and there may be no money left after legal fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

The first step is to find a lawyer with experience on this topic. Suing people can be done and won, but you need a lawyer who knows the lay of the land and what approaches work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

[/QUOTEThese are the alienation of affection cases, though, not the emotional distress cases. Courts have distinguished them and allowed them, even when a state has abolished the alienation claims.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification Liam. I am interested in the answer to this, too. It still likely depends on some state statutes. 

I do think emotional distress should be allowed. Also, I am lucky I did not get an STD. 

Still, I can not imagine that a person who did get an STD would not be allowed to sue for assault and or emotional distress. 

If these suits are not viable, IMO, laws need to be changed. 

A few lawsuits might make a few morons decide to take their vows seriously, or at least consider the health issues involved.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

Infidelity is not illegal and you might stumble into the Declaration of Independence which gives her inalienable rights in her _pursuit of happiness.***_

If that's the case, good luck fighting that one.

_***The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness._


----------



## BigLiam (May 2, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> Infidelity is not illegal and you might stumble into the Declaration of Independence which gives her inalienable rights in her _pursuit of happiness.***_
> 
> If that's the case, good luck fighting that one.
> 
> _***The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness._


I don't think there would be a constitutional problem. First, there is no governmental involvement and , clearly, a private citizen can be awarded damages against another citizen or corporation even if bringing the suit impacts the others pursuit of happiness.
It just strikes me that there should be legal redress for this type of offense.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

BigLiam said:


> I don't think there would be a constitutional problem. First, there is no governmental involvement and , clearly, a private citizen can be awarded damages against another citizen or corporation even if bringing the suit impacts the others pursuit of happiness.
> It just strikes me that there should be legal redress for this type of offense.


I don't disagree in concept. As a matter of fact, I can't think of anything that someone can legally do to another personal that is more damaging mentally, physically and emotionaly than infidelity. 

But just for sh*ts and giggles, imagine what kind of clusterfu*k it would be if they allowed people to sue one another for cheating. The thought of that is just mind boggling. lol. US Population is 300,000,000+. Even if you had your head up your keister and believed that only 10% of people cheat (lol)... that would still be 30 million potential lawsuits. It might bring the entire legal system to it's knees. Then just imagine the false suits, lmao!. Obviously thats just a loose abstract line of thought but its still amusing to try to get your head around.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Even if you "won" it would probably be a Pyrrhic victory*

**A Pyrrhic victory* is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

morituri said:


> **A Pyrrhic victory* is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.


lol, thank you. you saved me having to goggle that word. Is it pronounced "fear-ick?"


----------

