LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThis doesnt make sense to me... How can someone who is single and has no ties be sued... Sounds bonkers...
Naija Ruler!
Woman wins $500,000 in lawsuit over affair
By Eric Collins
GREENSBORO -- Cindy Harrell believes the woman she sued for having an affair with her husband deserved to pay dearly.
The Greensboro woman didn't set her hopes on a large sum, however.
But this week Superior Court Judge Steve A. Balog awarded her $500,000 against Beth Anne Carroccio, whom Harrell claims broke up her marriage to Clay Harrell last year.
"We were both kind of in shock," Harrell said of her and her lawyer. "I still can't believe it."
The judgment is based in part on what she stands to lose from her husband's earnings during his working life -- tabulated at $798,573.78, according to court records.
Carroccio, who neither appeared nor had a lawyer at Monday's hearing in Guilford County Superior Court, said she was too busy to talk Friday.
"I would love to talk to you, but I just don't have time," said Carroccio, reached Friday at her job at The Home Depot in Burlington.
Clay Harrell did not return a call seeking comment Friday.
North Carolina is one of less than a dozen states that allows people to seek money against those who steal the love of a married person. The claim is for alienation of affection and "criminal conversation," legalese referring to adultery.
People filed an average of 245 such suits per year in North Carolina between 2000 and 2005, according to data provided by the state Administrative Office of the Courts. Guilford County averaged about 26 such filings per year during the same period.
Some have garnered millions from the lawsuits.
A Guilford County judge in 2001 awarded Christine Stalas Cooper of Greensboro $2 million after she claimed in a suit that a South Carolina woman broke up her marriage. That may still be a record in the state.
Though such large judgments seem like windfalls, it's not easy to collect, experts say.
For example, nearly 18 months after getting the $2 million judgment, Stalas Cooper still had not received a dime, according to court records. She enlisted the help of a private Oregon-based "judgment enforcement" company. But it was unclear this week whether that helped.
Stalas Cooper couldn't be reached for comment and no one from the company returned calls.
In such cases, the parties can compromise, settling the judgment for a smaller sum, said Lonnie Albright, Harrell's Greensboro attorney.
Or the person who won the suit can go after the debtor's assets, though the debtor can try to get a certain amount exempted, Albright said.
If ignored, the judgment will blemish credit reports, he said.
"I don't know if (Harrell will) collect anything on it," he said of her $500,000 judgment. "She may very well hit pay dirt."
She called it a symbolic victory nevertheless.
"Don't mess with a woman who's got children with somebody," said Harrell,41, who married her husband in 2002. "My son will never grow up with his father."
According to court records, Clay Harrell, 36, was a co-worker of Carroccio's at The Home Depot on South Elm-Eugene Street.
After Cindy Harrell found out last spring that Carroccio was dating her husband, the couple separated and Carroccio received two warning letters from the wife's attorney advising her to stay away from the husband or face a lawsuit, court records indicate. The relationship continued, however, and Cindy Harrell filed the lawsuit in August. Carroccio never responded to it, court records state.
"She should have left him alone," said Cindy Harrell, who filed for divorce this month. "It wasn't like I didn't forewarn her."
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs...0101/606090329
"Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.
William Shakespeare, "All's Well That Ends Well", Act 1 Scene 1
Greatest English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1616)
Disappointment is inevitable but Misery is optional
I'm in my Own Group!
This doesnt make sense to me... How can someone who is single and has no ties be sued... Sounds bonkers...
Naija Ruler!
Actually, it does make totally sense because she maybe single but he was NOT and so for her to willingly indulge in an affair with a married man caused a break in his marriage or caused it to become irreparable even if there was a slight crack in the foundation.Originally Posted by Beautiful_Soul
I think when the law was instituted, women depended on their husbands for their source of income and also it helped their societal standing to be married and so when another woman takes that away from another, it is tantamount to leaving her broke and ostracized. There are only 7 states that still has that law on book and I guess this is still one of those so she had every right to take her to court and win.
I saw an episode on 20/20 on the WE channel whereby the wife proved beyond a doubt that the mistress did in fact systematically set out to lure her husband away from her and the jury believed her. I agreed when everything was laid out. She had been married for 9 years, everyone testified that by all accounts the couple where affectionate, close and seemingly in a great relationship with one another until the husband goes on a business trip. A friend who was on the trip stated that when he met the other woman, he showed no interest other than the usual, didn't exchange info with her and they left together so it wasn't as if he left him at the bar with the woman.
A few weeks later, she tracked down his address, his last name and began to send letters. And as the letters were being read out in court, one could see a slow progression from her being platonic to mildly curious about his state of affairs at home to increasing suggestive and then full blown aggressive. She pursued him doggedly so he eventually left his wife and three children.
She won $500,000.
It is a weird law but it makes sense to the person suing in that it makes someone accountable for their hurt and pain whether the husband returns or not. Some women, I am sorry to say are laying in wait for another's husband and a law like this in place might be the only way to teach them a lesson without going to jail for inflicting bodily harm on them.
"Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.
William Shakespeare, "All's Well That Ends Well", Act 1 Scene 1
Greatest English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1616)
Disappointment is inevitable but Misery is optional
Mr. Lover Man
Most court cases is not always about what's wrong or right, mostly its about what you can proof.
"The Only Thing Necessary For The Triumph Of Evil Is For Good Men To Do Nothing"
Yes, I tweet!
N.F.L. Baby!!!
Film Pros
I don't understand why the other woman is liable... Shouldn't the man be, through normal divorce court?
This is another case where women blame women... It's like women on women crime. Sue the other woman? Not the man, who was the one that made the legal vows? Women like to attack themselves. It is always the other woman's fault and not the man's...
Well, make I shut mouth, since things benefit my peeps....
"Tuck yo self in, better hold on to your teddy. It's nightmare on Elm street and guess whose playing Freddy!!"
I'm in my Own Group!
The man is still at fault... Noone can MAKE him do anything unless he is kidnapped! He needs to be made liable. As far as I am concerned you cannot STEAL a person. That does not make sense to me.
Naija Ruler!
Abi o
"Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.
William Shakespeare, "All's Well That Ends Well", Act 1 Scene 1
Greatest English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1616)
Disappointment is inevitable but Misery is optional
Master Group
It makes sense to me. The wife can then handle the issues with the husband in divorce court if it gets to that.
Lift, shrink and shape your body. It does not matter what size you are
https://www.ardysslife.com/12-Reshap...?ID=faithuzoma
Film Pros
How Sifu?! How?! Unless the other woman forced the man to divorce against his will, then she can be liable. He was not forced to leave, he left of his own free will...
This is a utterly stupid ruling. As a man I would be insulted. If I left you, it will be because I WANTED TO.. Not because some other person "made" me...
"Tuck yo self in, better hold on to your teddy. It's nightmare on Elm street and guess whose playing Freddy!!"
Master Group
No one is saying the man is innocent but the woman is not either. She knew he was married. His wife will definitely go after him in court but the other woman is not innocent. Trust me, I will be the last person to say that it's all the other woman's fault
Lift, shrink and shape your body. It does not matter what size you are
https://www.ardysslife.com/12-Reshap...?ID=faithuzoma
Film Pros
Even if she knew he was married, it is up to the man (or woman in the roles reversed) to say no! They are the ones that signed a legally binding document. The legal onus is not on the woman. There is no legal agreement, nor law, stating that she cannot date a married man. None...
The man however, signed a legal document stating that he will be faithfull to his wife. From a legal perspective I cannot understand how the single woman is liable for anything....
"Tuck yo self in, better hold on to your teddy. It's nightmare on Elm street and guess whose playing Freddy!!"
Master Group
The law in the state says she is. She is not paying because she broke the contract. She is paying because she caused "alienation of affection". She did that so she is liable. A man can also be sued for the same thing. It just so happens that most times it is a mistress that's involved and it is easier to prove. If someone's brother convinces him to get a divorce he too can be sued but that is harder to prove in court. Most times with affairs there is usually a trail. I really like this law when it is used appropriately
Lift, shrink and shape your body. It does not matter what size you are
https://www.ardysslife.com/12-Reshap...?ID=faithuzoma
Posting Permissions
