S.C. bill would let jilted spouses sue interloper

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

What next?

Do I get to sue someone who constantly tries to sabotage my fitness program?

If my daughter does poorly on her genetics test does she get to sue the persistent friend who lured her away from her studies to go dancing the weekend before the test?

April 19, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dicitizen (anonymous) says...

How does allowing a spouse to sue the "interloper" save a family or marriage? The deed has been done, it can't be taken back. Family court is already back logged enough without adding this to the table.

April 19, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

skeeter (anonymous) says...

Are you kidding me!!!??? Is this what our elected officials are working on in Columbia? With our tax dollars! My God man. What a bunch of horse crap!!!!! Why do these people once elected turn into blithering idiots?

April 19, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Quote: "Men and women who -- seduce -- married people could be sued by jilted spouses under a proposal that won initial approval from South Carolina lawmakers this week. : Enough homes are broken up without -- interference -- from outside the family."

The words 'seduce' and 'interfere' carry very different meanings. I would think that if the legislature was serious about protecting marriages they would include both words in Senate bill 1203, http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2....

This would put real teeth into the behinds of people who get their jollies through interfering in the marriages of others beyond what is offered in S.C. Code. § 20-7-429 (19), http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t20c....

Forcing people in a struggling marriage to rely solely on the whims of a family court (oxymoron) judge to impose contempt charges against those who interfere is 'too little -- too late'.

April 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Senate bill 1203, http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2....
TO AMEND CHAPTER 75, TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-75-25 SO AS TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ALIENATION OF AFFECTION.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 75, Title 15 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 15-75-25. (A) There is created a cause of action for alienation of affection. A person seeking to recover damages for alienation of affection must allege and prove:
(1) he or she is married to the person involved with the defendant;
(2) wrongful conduct occurred between the defendant and the plaintiff's spouse during the marriage;
(3) he or she suffered loss of affection or consortium of their spouse; and
(4) a causal connection exists between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss.
(B) An action for alienation of affection must be commenced within three years of the date of accrual of the cause of action, which occurs when the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of conduct giving rise to alienation of affection. However, cause of action for alienation of affection must not be maintained by a person who has entered into an agreement for separate maintenance containing an express waiver of this right."

http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t20c...
SECTION 20-7-420. Jurisdiction of family court in domestic matters.
(A) The family court has exclusive jurisdiction:
(19) In furtherance of the complete disposition of cases in the jurisdiction of the court, to bring in and make parties to any proceedings pending in the court any person or persons charged with or alleged to be interfering with the marital relationship between a husband and wife, in violation of the law or of the rights of either party to the marriage, or whose presence to the proceedings may be found necessary to a complete determination of the issues therein, or the relief to which the parties thereto, or any of them, may be entitled; and shall have the power to enjoin and restrain such interference and to punish for contempt of court violations of such injunctions or restraining orders.

April 19, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Either the state has a legitimate interest in the stability of marriages or it does not. If it truly does, then prove it by allowing people to sue interfering marital busy-bodies.

April 19, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

majorjohnson (anonymous) says...

Doesn't your spouse have half of the responsibility as well? If my wife was messing around with another man, would I have to include her in the suit, and when she lost if she was unemployed would I have to pay her share of damages to myself?

The best way to destroy the institution of marriage is to get government even more involved...look what a wonder it's done for health care.

As far as Jake Knotts is concerned, while I like some of what he does, he's a bible toting fruit loop who openly believes that the bible trumps both the federal and state constitutions. In case yall forgot, he's the guy who single handedly managed to keep tattoos illegal in this state since the first bill was put forth to allow it (1995 I think), and used Leviticus to justify it. Here is one of his wiser quotes..."if the Lord wanted you to have a tattoo, he would have put it on you." And no, I don't have any tattoos or piercings, I don't even wear a wrist watch, but this guy is a bit of a nut sometimes. He currently has a bill pending that would provide additional penalties for destroying a communications device (cell phone, telephone, blueberry) during the commission of a crime...and another that makes it a crime not to stop and call the police if you run over a dog, cat or horse.

April 19, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

chudbrocktune (anonymous) says...

Sounds like the person who thought this brilliant idea up is having some trouble keeping their spouse satisfied at home, so they want a way to take it out on the person who is satisfying their signifigant other. They could also just be dunb.

April 19, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

woodrob12 (anonymous) says...

Not surprised this collection of attorneys found something the public can pay them to sue for rather than outlawing divorce, which, of course would reduce aforementioned attorneys' collections.

If they were truly interested in preserving the sactity of the family, wouldn't that be the most efficient way of going about it?

April 19, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dicitizen (anonymous) says...

lillycollette - by interfering marital busy-bodies, are you including in-laws, brothers, sisters, and all other "well meaning" outside parties........we must be specific here.

April 19, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

Most of this is based in the common law(old English law).

"Back in the day", it was assumed/thought that a woman had a child-like mind & constitution & therefore was limited in her ability to resist a seduction.

Because of this, if she was seduced, it was not her fault.

This law gave the husbands, almost exclusively, the right to protect the marriage by taking action against someone who would prey on the weakest part of the union.

April 19, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ForPnC (anonymous) says...

This one is funny too:
"a 1824 bill that lets women sue anyone questioning their chastity."

Jeez...
Politicians are getting stupid-er and stupid-er.
Senator Knotts must have fell down and got a knot on his head.
Sir - you are the epitome of a Moron, First Class.

April 19, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...

The "he or she suffered loss of affection or consortium of their spouse" provision is going to be very difficult to prove. This law won't be worth the paper it's written on. Are our politicians so arrogant that they feel a need to get involved with every single element of our lives? A failed marriage has got to be painful enough without bringing MORE lawyers into it.

April 19, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Quote: "... a study this week that found divorce and out-of-wedlock births cost South Carolina taxpayers $469 MILLION each year and $112 BILLION overall for U.S. taxpayers. ... The chairman of the subcommittee said failed marriages are damaging society and that there should be repercussions for interlopers in marriages."

Allowing these burdens to be dumped on the taxpayers when another alternative may nip it in the bud seems incredibly STUPID to me.

April 19, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

outrage (anonymous) says...

Big Govt. strikes again!

April 19, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

South Carolina has a law prohibiting adultery (see below).

If this was enforced to the degree that the law prohibiting poker games is, perhaps the bill that is now being proposed would not be necessary.

SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SECTION 16-15-70. "Adultery" defined.

"Adultery" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.

April 19, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

Let me re-phrase what I wrote in my last post...

Perhaps if a law that already is in existence on the books was enforced to the degree that some other laws are enforced, the dunderheads in our legislature wouldn't feel the need to introduce yet another law/bill.

This type of thing (not working with the laws/bills/codes already on the books) happens often in many other areas.

For example: If speed limit laws in neighborhoods were strictly enforced, the city wouldn't need to spend $ putting in those ridiculous speed bumps, & in fact could bring revenue by ticketing the speeders.

April 19, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ForPnC (anonymous) says...

abitskeptical - I don't speed through neighborhoods. Too many kids and pets will dash in front of a car. I'd like a spike strip to randomly throw on my road once in a while though. The only people that don't speed on it are the ones that live on it.

April 19, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MomOfTwo (anonymous) says...

True story-my friend came home from work, caught his wife in bed with another man. Hes granted divorce since adultery is illegal in SC. BUT hes 20+years Navy, retired, and has to pay a part of his retirement to ex-wife anyway for the rest of his life. She is now married to the "interloper" and they both get to enjoy this retirement money. Perhaps this law would make people do the right thing-end your current relationship BEFORE starting a new one.

April 19, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

Momoftwo-That is a strange divorce settlement. Usually payments to ex-spouse (not child support) end upon the re-marriage of the spouse.

ForPnC-I don't speed through neighborhoods either. Speeding through neighborhoods is off topic,..but I brought it & the speed bump issue up as an example of what I think is wasted energy & resources. We have laws that address safe speeds in various venues. Enforce them & nix the speed bumps.

If they did this in neighborhoods on a regular basis, speed bumps would not be "necessary".

I believe "speed traps" are more appropriate in neighborhoods than in some of the places they are usually set up. I do not think I ever have seen someone getting a speeding ticket in a neighborhood.

Further, in some neighborhoods the police presence also could serve as a deterrent to crime--the proverbial "killing 2 birds with 1 stone". Just a thought.

April 19, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MomOfTwo (anonymous) says...

abitskeptical - I know this has nothing to do with the article at hand. However, strange? Yes. WRONG, yes; true, yes. Google "USFSPA" - Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act. State divorce courts divide military retirement pay as community property, not alimony, and it does not stop upon remarriage; only death.

In line with this article, many of our Veterans come home to find out their spouses have cheated. They divorce, but the spouse gets paid because the spouse "suffered" while the Veteran was away - the government says the spouse "earned" the Veterans' retirement pay, too. If a law like this were passed, maybe, just maybe people would think twice before committing adultery with a married person, Veteran or not.

And I truly believe the person who cheats, as well as the interloper, should be held accountable and have to pay.

April 19, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JC (anonymous) says...

Is this a late April fools joke? This is totally asinine!!! First of all, what if its the the spouse who does the pursuing? Lord knows there are a lot of those out there! What if the spouse lies and says they are not married? The spouse is the one who you have a binding agreement with. THe spouse is the one that you have to trust. The spouse is the one who is at fault regardless! There is also already a law in place to protect the injured spouse - IT'S CALLED DIVORCE, and as far as compensation for the injured spouse - IT'S CALLED ALIMONY!!!! OHHH...and let's not forget maybe the so-called injured spouse drove the other spouse to it..I can think of a thousand reasons...not to say I condone it of course. Okay you guys in Columbia...there are more important things for you to be spending your time on and the tax payers money. Gezzzzz...what a joke. THere is a reason why they took it off the books in the 90's!

April 19, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KidYendor (anonymous) says...

The government is the biggest causer of out-of-wedlock births with the creation of the welfare state of which about 19 percent of South Carolinians are in. Interlopers pale in comparison to the welfare state. These legislators are putting out a forest fire with a Dixie cup of water. A forest fire they started and will not accept responsibility for. And what do interlopers have to do with out-of-wedlock births anyway?

April 19, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

Like I said earlier, if the adultery law was enforced to the degree that the gambling laws & simple possession laws are, if the adulterers actually spent time in jail, had to pay fines etc,(as outlined in the code of laws) if this infraction was on their permanent legal record, perhaps people would think twice before that "dalliance with another while married".

Thanks for the explanation on military retirement & divorce payments.

April 19, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Quote: : "[T]here should be repercussions for interlopers in marriages."

People have made bitter allegations and complaints against LEO wasting tax dollars on enforcing gambling laws. I have no reason to believe these people will be any happier if LEO enforces the law on adultery / fornication. It would just turn into another occasion for rabble rousers to rant and rave

The penalties at §16-15-60 http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c... hardly qualify as "repercussions" sufficient to stop the behavior which has such a damaging impact on our economy.

This issue could be more efficiently handled through civil suit-which is what the legislature is attempting to address.

April 19, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

KidYendor was very correct in the statement, "The government is the biggest causer of out-of-wedlock births with the creation of the welfare state" :

However, this is not about reforming Title IV of the Social Security Act. This is about allowing private causes of action against interfering individuals.

April 19, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

I see where the legislature needs to start addressing this private issue of marital interference. I also see where the legislature needs to start cleaning up their act in issues of marriage.

They could start by reviewing the marriage license and certificate used by the state.

There is no space on that document allowing for the sworn verified affidavit of the parties that there is no impediment to their marriage.

There is no space on that document for the signatures of witnesses to the marriage leaving the door wide open to forgery and fraud-crimes which have in fact occurred.

If the state has a valid interest in the licensing of marriage then they should be prepared to use more legal documents that these rags.

April 19, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

My point is that we do have a LAW prohibiting adultery. It never has been enforced,in recent times,to any degree which would get people's attention.

I'm not sure it has been enforced at all. Does anyone know of anyone who was actually arrested for adultery?

The penalty for violation of the adultery law can cost the adulterer as much as a year in jail & $500 fine. I imagine that if this law had a history of being enforced to the max, it would be plenty sufficient to "qualify" as a deterrent to many potential adulterers.

It really is rather disingenuous for the "rah rah, the law is the law" crowd to dismiss this law & penalty for violating it as "hardly qualifying as repercussions sufficient to stop the behavior which has such a damaging impact on our economy."

I wasn't aware that the severity of the penalty for a law violation was a determining factor in its enforcement. Also I really don't think that a rise in the rabble-rousing index, measured by ranting & raving, is a factor considered by LEO before they embark on enforcing a law.

Certainly, since adultery costs the SC taxpayers so much money, not to mention other costs that cannot be measured in dollars, the law prohibiting it should be given at least as much attention as the laws prohibiting other activities that supposedly are so costly to society.

Perhaps if this law had been taken seriously & properly enforced, the state of out society would not be where it is.

A comment on rabble-rousing:

Some say our founding fathers were a bunch of rabble-rousers. I imagine that they are rolling over in their graves at the direction this country has taken.

Sometimes it takes a bit of rabble-rousing to make a difference.

April 19, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Perhaps if "X" had done even cursory research before taking off in a personal vendetta to discredit me "X" might have found LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS, where the law "X" is citing was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

"X" could have easily found the 2006 local burglary case where fornication was also charged and Ralph Hoisington refused to prosecute the fornication charge based on LAWRENCE v. TEXAS.

The severity of penalty attached to §16-15-60 became academic in 2003. That is why I specifically said, "This issue could be more efficiently handled through civil suit-which is what the legislature is attempting to address."

To the best of my knowledge and recollection I have never made any disingenuous comments. There are instances where others have attempted to put their own spin on what I have said. However, direct quotes easily foil that agenda.

Our founding fathers demonstrated courage, forthrightness and intelligence when they engaged in their rabble rousing and I have utmost respect for the risk they took.

April 20, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

I have heard all manner of dysfunctional self-justification from allegedly well-meaning people who maliciously interfere in the marriages of others. They cover everything under the sun including lust, love, finances and control issues under guise of friendship.

If this bill passes into law, then perhaps some of these antisocial freaks will have the opportunity to explain their plethora of schemes to juries in the court of Common Pleas.

It's about time malcontents are forced to foot the bill for their behavior instead of dumping the burden on taxpayers as mentioned in the above article.

April 20, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

I agree that the fornication (between 2 unmarried people)law should be abolished, not merely because it is unenforceable, but because it is unconstitutional.

In all of my posts I believe it is clear I am referring to the offense of adultery within marriage part of that law.

Ms. Collette-for one who uses sarcasm & condescending comments to disagree with another, you should develop a thicker skin. I have never intended to discredit you. As I previously said-It is difficult to have a reasonable & respectful discussion with someone like you who responds to bits & pieces of another's comments (usually pulled out of context),in a derisive & condescending way. It surely appears that you have little respect for those with opinions, observations, suggestions that do not line up with your own. I suppose you & I have a different understanding of "reasonable". Perhaps in response to your posts I unwittingly have been responding to what I just described, & I apologize for that.

The cases Ms. Collette cites involve/addresses the sodomy laws:
LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS:"The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: "The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time."

"..as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries ABSENT INJURY TO A PERSON OR ABUSE OF AN INSTITUTION THE LAW PROTECTS"....wouldn't this mean adulterous behavior by those within a marriage?

Ms. Collette, in my ignorance I have not been able to find a a case where the SC laws on adultery as it occurs in the cases of marital infidelity have been invalidated. Please educate me on this & I will stand corrected.

April 20, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Blah, blah, blah ...

April 20, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

I have no need to discredit you when you do such a fine job of that all by yourself.

April 20, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Blah, blah and blah ...

April 20, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

Can I quote you on that oh so brilliant response?

April 20, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Blah, blah, blah ...

April 21, 2008 at 2:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

abitskeptical (anonymous) says...

HARPO- you are correct in the "loss of property " concept. The old English law on which the alienation of affection law suits are based drew on the reasoning that the wife was the property of the husband & also that she didn't have a mind of her own which would enable her to resist a seducer.

April 21, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )