I guess you can sue for anything and win....

[Ping898]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFkg05PN361reUpYAF9hGHIWeiXw

Court Urged to Enter Spurned Spouse Case

By MARK SHERMAN – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A plumber and a millionaire squared off in Mississippi over a woman. The woman chose the rich guy. The plumber sued the millionaire and won more than $750,000.
Now Jerry Fitch Sr., a businessman from Holly Springs, Miss., wants the Supreme Court to step in and limit what a spurned spouse can collect through a lawsuit that claims "alienation of affection."
Fitch said he shouldn't have to pay $112,000 in punitive damages, citing an earlier high court decision overturning state criminal laws against gay sex to bolster his case. He is not contesting the rest of the judgment.
The Mississippi Supreme Court called the matter a classic case of "he said/she said/the paramour said."
Mississippi is one of only seven states that still allows lawsuits by people who claim someone stole their wife or husband. The others are Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
The claim is rooted in the antiquated notion of a woman as her husband's property. Most states have abolished alienation of affection as a basis for lawsuits.
Sandra Fitch, the woman in this case, was married to the plumber, Johnny Valentine, when she was hired by Fitch's real estate company.
Within a year, she and Fitch began an affair. She became pregnant by Fitch, but she told Valentine his suspicions about adultery were unfounded.
Soon, though, Valentine had genetic tests done showing he was not the baby's father. He sued for divorce and then he sued Fitch, who is worth $22 million, according to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The purpose of such a suit, the Mississippi high court said, is "the protection of the love, society, companionship, and comfort that form the foundation of a marriage."
......
A jury awarded Valentine more than $750,000, including $112,000 in punitive damages. The state Supreme Court upheld the verdict.
.....
"There is simply no rational basis for state sanctioned punishment of intimate association between consenting adults," Goza said in a filing asking the court to block payment until it decides whether to grant Fitch's appeal.

 

[exile]

I don't think this is gonna stand up under appeal. It makes the fundamentally false claim that someone's emotional state is under someone else's literal control, as though the first one was hypnotized by the second. People are allowed to change their feelings about each other and act on those changes in feelings—at least in these parts.

 

[terryl965]

I don't think this is gonna stand up under appeal. It makes the fundamentally false claim that someone's emotional state is under someone else's literal control, as though the first one was hypnotized by the second. People are allowed to change their feelings about each other and act on those changes in feelings—at least in these parts.

I would have to agree but who would have thought that somebody would sue over this.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I don't think this is gonna stand up under appeal. It makes the fundamentally false claim that someone's emotional state is under someone else's literal control, as though the first one was hypnotized by the second. People are allowed to change their feelings about each other and act on those changes in feelings—at least in these parts.

No matter how you argue I will never take my "EX" back. :lol:

Oh wait you meant that she could leave and he has no grounds.

 

[bydand]

I guess the Plumber better make sure that under this old law, the woman isn't still viewed as his property. The other guy may bring her back and want a refund, that would suck.

 

[exile]

No matter how you argue I will never take my "EX" back. :lol:

Oh wait you meant that she could leave and he has no grounds.

Yup! :lol:

I guess the Plumber better make sure that under this old law, the woman isn't still viewed as his property. The other guy may bring her back and want a refund, that would suck.

This is the kind of scenario that makes it clear how crazy the whole premise of the case is in the first place! What if the zillionaire pays up, waits until the other guy has spent the measly (from the zillionaire's point of view) 100K plus he'd get from the settlement, and then demands a refund?! In that case, that plumber had better hope there are a lot of wonky U-bends in his neck of the woods....

 

[grydth]

It seems with respect to certain types of topics, such as the legal system, critical thinking gets checked at the door.

The thread title is, "I guess you can sue for anything and win". Now, its bad enough that but one wacky case is cited as authority for this general - and quite untrue - proposition.

But the very article cited as support specifically mentions that such lawsuits are only allowed in 7 states - - - so, in truth, in 43 states (that's 86%) these suits cannot even be brought.... much less won.

 

[theletch1]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the critical thinking side of this thread. It was put in the Bar and Grill instead of the Study as something of a poke at the guy doing the suing. Frivolous lawsuits have plagued the country for sometime now ($54 million dress pants anyone?) and folks that don't have the mindset that goes along with the "I'll sue" approach to life get to the point where suits like this are to be brought up to ridicule.

Think of this conversation as taking place over a couple of beers instead of over a law book.

 

[grydth]

I'd agree with you, as I know I get way too serious on certain topics.... except that the day before folks were feeling that one accused (not even convicted) child molesting sensei on Long island 'made us all look bad.' My point is one of just about anything does not decisively reflect on the rest of just about everything.

You have a good point about not everything needing to be a high stakes debate, but I do think we need to maintain some type of critical eye.

By the way, if memory serves me, the absurd pants lawsuit was a big loser for the plaintiff and not an example of a goofy suit winning.

No offense taken.

 

[jks9199]

I'd agree with you, as I know I get way too serious on certain topics.... except that the day before folks were feeling that one accused (not even convicted) child molesting sensei on Long island 'made us all look bad.' My point is one of just about anything does not decisively reflect on the rest of just about everything.

You have a good point about not everything needing to be a high stakes debate, but I do think we need to maintain some type of critical eye.

By the way, if memory serves me, the absurd pants lawsuit was a big loser for the plaintiff and not an example of a goofy suit winning.

No offense taken.

Yes and no, regarding the outcome of the pants lawsuit.

The defendant prevailed at trial, but the legal costs and disruptions ended up forcing them to close two of their three shops (as I recall).

However, recent press coverage suggests that the administrative law judge who brought suit is soon to be unemployed, and no longer any sort of judge.

And that's one thing with law suits. Fighting one can often and easily become a pyrrhic victory... And, for that reason, often business and governments settle rather than fight even when they did everything right.

 

[grydth]

Let's assume the outcome of the pants pressing case is as you say it is... that absolutely does not support - and in fact contradicts - the thread title and premise. There is no way that a plaintiff who recovers nothing, loses his job and quite likely will have to bear court costs can be said to have, "sued for anything and won"!

I don't want to hijack the thread, but let me say that the reasons cases are settled are far, far more varied and numerous than just the cost of defense. Been there, done that, more thousands of times than I can count.... but that's another thread.

 

[jks9199]

Let's assume the outcome of the pants pressing case is as you say it is... that absolutely does not support - and in fact contradicts - the thread title and premise. There is no way that a plaintiff who recovers nothing, loses his job and quite likely will have to bear court costs can be said to have, "sued for anything and won"!

I don't want to hijack the thread, but let me say that the reasons cases are settled are far, far more varied and numerous than just the cost of defense. Been there, done that, more thousands of times than I can count.... but that's another thread.

I agree that this is turning into a hijack of the thread; if you think it's worth further discussion, let's start a new thread. I was only trying to address the pants case. I do agree; the thread title is misleading. And I didn't say that every case is settled to avoid the costs of the defense; I simply said that many (but not all!) cases are settled, even when the defendant did not do anything wrong and would win, because the costs to defend the case outweigh the cost of the settlement. And that defending yourself is often so expensive that it often encourages such settlements.

 

[grydth]

There are many real and perceived inadequacies of our legal system that would make for excellent threads here.... it's tough when you are restricted by a title, though, that isn't one of them.

Settlements in civil cases (and their cousins - plea bargains in criminal cases) are widely praised and used by lawyers/judges.... but despised by the public. There is potential in the topic for several threads, with plenty of participation.

 

[Rich Parsons]

NBC's Today Show covered this. I did not see it but I did see an ad for it while reviewing Bourne Supremecy I recorded.