If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRAL)   If you're thinking about stealing another woman's husband in North Carolina, here's 30 million reasons not to   (wral.com) divider line 51
    More: Spiffy, alienation of affections, compensatory damages, punitive damages, North Carolina, alienation of affection suit, superior courts  
•       •       •

15846 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2011 at 11:01 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-15 11:04:03 AM  
Spiffy? This sort of thing does not occur in a vacuum.
 
2011-03-15 11:07:00 AM  
Did this occur in Fist City?
 
2011-03-15 11:07:29 AM  
Farkers unaffected.
 
2011-03-15 11:07:35 AM  
That's.... a little bit ridiculous.
 
2011-03-15 11:07:41 AM  
That poor man had absolutely no say! He was maliciously forced to cheat on his wife by that sorceress!
 
2011-03-15 11:09:27 AM  
I wonder if this is why she lost Devin was not represented and didn't appear in court.
 
2011-03-15 11:10:14 AM  

Genevieve Marie: That's.... a little bit ridiculous.


That better had been a great POA.
 
2011-03-15 11:10:35 AM  
I LOL'd
 
2011-03-15 11:11:41 AM  
These alienation of affection suits are somewhat odd. I mean, c'mon, both parties participated. Its not like some svengali-like chick is going to mesmerize some otherwise faithful husband away, like sirens on a rock.

cache2.artprintimages.com

Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings. Does anyone really think she'll collect $30 million bucks from your average tart?

Maybe its better to let them biatch it out in court than to shoot each other.....I'm thinking a public mud wrestling contest might be a better way to settle it
 
2011-03-15 11:13:44 AM  
I hope she was worth it.
 
2011-03-15 11:14:19 AM  
Superior Court Judge Carl Fox handed down a judgment against Betty Devin requiring her to pay over $10 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages to Carol Puryear, the former wife of Donald Puryear, who owns a trucking company in Raleigh...
Devin was not represented and didn't appear in court.


Translation: this is a default judgement.
 
2011-03-15 11:17:01 AM  

bikerbob59: Genevieve Marie: That's.... a little bit ridiculous.

That better had been a great POA.


For real. Golf ball, garden hose, etc.
 
2011-03-15 11:17:08 AM  

Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property.


Irrelevant - this is more like a tortious interference with contract claim. Your employees are not your property, but if your competitor starts working behind the scenes to steal them away right before your big product release, you may have a claim.

These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings. Does anyone really think she'll collect $30 million bucks from your average tart?

Notice how she's the former wife of the guy who owns the trucking company. Without knowing more, it's possible that the guy married Devin and thus she has half of a large trucking company. In which case, the suit really isn't much different from alimony.
 
2011-03-15 11:18:15 AM  
This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of legal stupid in modern Western society. I hope he hand delivers the money in the bottom of a paper bag after leaving a nice big stinky on top.
 
2011-03-15 11:22:07 AM  
I told my wife a long time ago that if she ever cheats on me to make sure it is with someone very wealthy.

/NC resident
 
2011-03-15 11:25:53 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Did this occur in Fist City?


Over in two.
 
2011-03-15 11:28:41 AM  

Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings.


Pretty much. The idea that someone else can steal your husband's affection for you... it's just such a messed up way to look at relationships.
 
2011-03-15 11:29:56 AM  
If you're thinking about stealing another woman's husband in California, I'll marry any old black toothed Russian battleaxe from Craig's List, then you can steal me from her. If you're hot.
 
2011-03-15 11:34:55 AM  

J.Garcia'sRightMiddleFinger: I wonder if this is why she lost Devin was not represented and didn't appear in court.


That was my first thought too.
 
2011-03-15 11:35:18 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings.

Pretty much. The idea that someone else can steal your husband's affection for you... it's just such a messed up way to look at relationships.


Sooo ahh.. you're saying it's not possible.


Y'know, I'd say that drinking alcohol leads to alcoholism but that's a messed up way of looking at college.
 
2011-03-15 11:39:49 AM  
I'm thinking that Ms. Devin is judgment proof and all the ex-wife has is a nice piece of paper she can frame and hang on the wall.

Good luck collecting that $30 million there.
 
2011-03-15 11:40:02 AM  

Cythraul: I hope she was worth it.


If only we had pics.
 
2011-03-15 11:41:39 AM  

Theaetetus: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property.

Irrelevant - this is more like a tortious interference with contract claim. Your employees are not your property, but if your competitor starts working behind the scenes to steal them away right before your big product release, you may have a claim.

These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings. Does anyone really think she'll collect $30 million bucks from your average tart?

Notice how she's the former wife of the guy who owns the trucking company. Without knowing more, it's possible that the guy married Devin and thus she has half of a large trucking company. In which case, the suit really isn't much different from alimony.


or in *addition* to alimony... i.e. she got half of *his* stuff in alimony, and half of *their* stuff in this suit, meaning a total of 3/4 of *his* stuff.

Win. ;-)
 
2011-03-15 11:44:15 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings.

Pretty much. The idea that someone else can steal your husband's affection for you... it's just such a messed up way to look at relationships.


Legally, marriage s a contract, and has been pretty much since Og bartered three sheep for Zog's daughter. If you willingly work to make one party break the contract how is that not an atempt to defraud the other party? That feelings were involved does not negate a contract; I am fairly certain that since contracts involve humans (who have feelings) every contract involves some feeling, even if simply greed. Shall we excuse every breech of a contract since all involve feelings on one level or other?
 
2011-03-15 11:44:21 AM  

Chakka: If you're thinking about stealing another woman's husband in California, I'll marry any old black toothed Russian battleaxe from Craig's List Fark, then you can steal me from her. If you're hot.


FTFY. You're already here. Why make things harder on yourself?
 
2011-03-15 11:45:21 AM  

Chakka: Sooo ahh.. you're saying it's not possible.


I'm saying that no one cheats on their own, so making someone not in the marriage legally liable for the marriage breaking up is a little absurd.
 
2011-03-15 11:50:58 AM  

Theaetetus: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property.

Irrelevant - this is more like a tortious interference with contract claim. Your employees are not your property, but if your competitor starts working behind the scenes to steal them away right before your big product release, you may have a claim.

These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings. Does anyone really think she'll collect $30 million bucks from your average tart?

Notice how she's the former wife of the guy who owns the trucking company. Without knowing more, it's possible that the guy married Devin and thus she has half of a large trucking company. In which case, the suit really isn't much different from alimony.


Since she let the judgment go by default, you can believe she's as poor as a church mouse. There are trucking companies....and then there are trucking companies, if you know what I mean. I'm thinking Sanford and Son's trucking company is more likely the case.

The other thing that makes me wonder is this. I mean, if she's married to a cheating scoundrel, exactly how much of a loss is she suffering by losing him? I mean, I would think she is better off without him.

Its just a way to manage hurt feelings by going to court and whining instead of shooting the offending party...and its outdated, outmoded and really stupid.
 
2011-03-15 11:56:05 AM  

Jacobin: Its just a way to manage hurt feelings by going to court and whining instead of shooting the offending party...and its outdated, outmoded and really stupid.


Outdated and outmoded, instead of shooting the offending party? As in, that wouldn't be outdated or outmoded?
 
2011-03-15 11:56:26 AM  
It's fully possible for a person to contribute to a spouse's declining affection and commitment. It's not their fault if your spouse is susceptible or does finally cave (that rests with your former better-half) but they certainly can contribute. That doesn't, by any means, result in a suit-worthy offense. It's your fault for picking someone so easily swayed OR signing the prenup.

/You won't see the ex of a broke person pulling this crap
 
2011-03-15 11:56:28 AM  

phalamir: Genevieve Marie: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings.

Pretty much. The idea that someone else can steal your husband's affection for you... it's just such a messed up way to look at relationships.

Legally, marriage s a contract, and has been pretty much since Og bartered three sheep for Zog's daughter. If you willingly work to make one party break the contract how is that not an atempt to defraud the other party? That feelings were involved does not negate a contract; I am fairly certain that since contracts involve humans (who have feelings) every contract involves some feeling, even if simply greed. Shall we excuse every breech of a contract since all involve feelings on one level or other?


No, but we don't hold someone legally responsible for a contract they never entered into. If a business has an exclusive contract with a supplier and they choose to use another supplier- it's that business that broke a contract, not the new supplier.
 
2011-03-15 11:59:19 AM  

Genevieve Marie: phalamir: Genevieve Marie: Jacobin: Plus, your spouse is not your property. These are just ways to avenge hurt feelings.

Pretty much. The idea that someone else can steal your husband's affection for you... it's just such a messed up way to look at relationships.

Legally, marriage s a contract, and has been pretty much since Og bartered three sheep for Zog's daughter. If you willingly work to make one party break the contract how is that not an atempt to defraud the other party? That feelings were involved does not negate a contract; I am fairly certain that since contracts involve humans (who have feelings) every contract involves some feeling, even if simply greed. Shall we excuse every breech of a contract since all involve feelings on one level or other?

No, but we don't hold someone legally responsible for a contract they never entered into. If a business has an exclusive contract with a supplier and they choose to use another supplier- it's that business that broke a contract, not the new supplier.


Tortious interference, GM. We can hold the new supplier liable if they unfairly enticed the business to breach their contract.
 
2011-03-15 12:03:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Tortious interference, GM. We can hold the new supplier liable if they unfairly enticed the business to breach their contract.


It just seems so utterly ridiculous to apply that standard to someone's sex life.
 
2011-03-15 12:05:49 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Theaetetus: Tortious interference, GM. We can hold the new supplier liable if they unfairly enticed the business to breach their contract.

It just seems so utterly ridiculous to apply that standard to someone's sex life.


This may be one of the lesser absurdities in regards to North Carolina's dictates on sex lives.
 
2011-03-15 12:15:46 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Theaetetus: Tortious interference, GM. We can hold the new supplier liable if they unfairly enticed the business to breach their contract.

It just seems so utterly ridiculous to apply that standard to someone's sex life.


But we're not applying it to just a sex life... In fact, according to many bitter and lonely Farkers, a sex life and marriage are entirely unrelated. Here, we're talking about a marriage contract, and the interference with said contract.

I'm not defending alienation of affection claims generally. As noted above, they're outdated. I'm just saying that they're not based on some entirely alien legal theory.
 
2011-03-15 12:20:27 PM  

Theaetetus: I'm not defending alienation of affection claims generally. As noted above, they're outdated. I'm just saying that they're not based on some entirely alien legal theory.


Oh fair enough, they just definitely seem totally out of touch with modern concepts of marriage and relationships.
 
2011-03-15 12:22:13 PM  
SPIFFY tag is UNC blue...

/coincidence? If you say so...
 
2011-03-15 12:26:34 PM  
This is why I quit messing with married women when I moved to NC. You would be surprised by how many people do not know this law exists, I know I was.
 
2011-03-15 12:28:13 PM  
I wonder, had she appeared in court to represent herself, would she have gotten a better outcome than not appearing at all?
 
2011-03-15 12:28:30 PM  
You are only as faithful as your options
 
2011-03-15 12:35:34 PM  

Theaetetus: Jacobin: Its just a way to manage hurt feelings by going to court and whining instead of shooting the offending party...and its outdated, outmoded and really stupid.

Outdated and outmoded, instead of shooting the offending party? As in, that wouldn't be outdated or outmoded?



There are probably more than two options, as you suggested. We could go with the Saudi Arabia option, which would be to have the village stone the woman who was allegedly the seducer. The nice part about that it is would eliminate property settlement and alimony issues.

The fourth, and I suppose most bizarre from some people's standpoint, would be to get divorced and move on, since obviously the couple has irreconcilable differences in that one is bed hopping without the other spouses blessing. I know this sounds really kinky and weird, but its what happens 99.999% of the time. Give up the angst. The offended party got hurt in love. So sorry. Better luck next time.
 
2011-03-15 12:41:18 PM  
I told my wife a long time ago that if she ever cheats on me to make sure it is with someone very wealthy.

This would indicate that the same scenario can work if genders are swapped. I would think the ex-wife bears some degree of complicity - meaning perhaps she pushed him away/froze up/verbally berated the guy/etc. Perhaps there was some emotional isolation/abandonment already in play ("Emotional abuse", if it were the man doing it to the woman.)

/NC resident too (W-S)
 
2011-03-15 12:48:08 PM  
Damn - ex wife holds a grudge, maybe she needs to move on...
 
2011-03-15 12:57:06 PM  

JohnCarter: Damn - ex wife holds a grudge, maybe she needs to move on...


Moving on with $30 million is pretty easy. Or so I have heard.
 
2011-03-15 01:06:57 PM  
Apparantly,the ex wife has moved on to another Donald.

12317 Birchfalls Drive
Raleigh, NC 27614
Find on map >>
Owner: DONALD ALLEN & CAROL PURYEAR
Land value: $450,000
Building value: $2,382,164
Total value for property: $2,832,164
Assessments for tax year: 2009/2010
Last sale (land only): $455,000 (10/30/2003)
Builtins: Multiple Fireplaces
Year property was built: 2006
Effective year built: 2006
Heated area: 10,177 square feet
Land size: 91,476 square feet

Other improvements/additions:
Pool/Residential: 1,500 square feet, built in 2006
Poolhouse: 320 square feet, built in 2006
Terrace: 176 square feet
Deck: 24 square feet
Open Porch: 590 square feet
Open Porch: 63 square feet
Garage Masonry: 896 square feet
Open Porch: 195 square feet
Garage Masonry: 1,137 square feet
1s Masonry: 285 square feet
Open Porch: 72 square feet
Terrace: 176 square feet
Deck: 24 square feet
Open Porch: 270 square feet
Storage: 88 square feet


WAT! a 24 sq ft deck? can you fit a George Foreman Grill on that?
 
2011-03-15 01:15:54 PM  
You know who is responsible for making sure a spouse doesn't stray? The spouse. Lawsuits like this continue to paint men has helpless saps without a will of their own. Hell, even people who argue that a woman shouldn't be in power because, three days out of every month, her period makes her unfit to lead are being kinder to women than this sort of lawsuit is to men. Essentially, this kind of suit paints men as emotionally idiots 365 days a year.

We are never going to elect a male president with crap like this going on.
 
2011-03-15 01:25:42 PM  

DeaH: You know who is responsible for making sure a spouse doesn't stray? The spouse. Lawsuits like this continue to paint men has helpless saps without a will of their own. Hell, even people who argue that a woman shouldn't be in power because, three days out of every month, her period makes her unfit to lead are being kinder to women than this sort of lawsuit is to men. Essentially, this kind of suit paints men as emotionally idiots 365 days a year.

We are never going to elect a male president with crap like this going on.


... But I AM emotionally idiotic 365 days a year!

/I hate you. Hold me?
 
2011-03-15 01:38:55 PM  
Articles like this just reinforce the idea that marriage should be banned.

\There is your equality for ya!
 
2011-03-15 01:46:16 PM  
From the comments on the article "The couple married are the ones who broke the vowels!"

Yep. This article sure shows the importance of staying consonant in marriage! Also shows how important it is to get the vowels right. Especially the O.
 
2011-03-15 01:51:38 PM  

DrWhy: From the comments on the article "The couple married are the ones who broke the vowels!"

Yep. This article sure shows the importance of staying consonant in marriage! Also shows how important it is to get the vowels right. Especially the O.


Y?
 
2011-03-15 03:34:12 PM  
There have been many marriages where a spouse became less involved and even left a family because of alcohol, drugs and even porn. Yet I don't hear of the spouse left behind suing distilleries or drug dealers or porn distributors.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report