It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mistress ordered to pay $5.9 million to wife she wronged

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Mistress ordered to pay $5.9 million to wife she wronged
By Paul Thompson, The Daily Telegraph September 9, 2010 2:34 PM Be the first to post a comment
•Story•Photos ( 1 )
A spurned American wife has won $5.9 million Cdn in compensation from the woman who broke up her marriage.Photograph by: Chris Mikula, Ottawa CitizenA spurned American wife has won $5.9 million Cdn in compensation from the woman who broke up her marriage.


Dr Lynn Arcara used a centuries-old law of "alienation of affection" to sue one of her closest friends after the woman stole her husband of six years.


Dr Arcara was several months pregnant with her first child when she invited Susan Pecoraro to stay at her home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, so that she could help to decorate the nursery.


However, Miss Pecoraro, 45, used the opportunity to embark upon an affair with Dr Arcara's husband, Russell, a retired U.S. army officer.


Read more: www.montrealgazette.com...


Pretty crazy that these little know laws on the "books"


Miss Pecoraro still lives in the town of Hebron, Maryland, and may never have to pay the money as the judgment cannot be enforced in another state.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Perfect stranger
 


Well it almost seems like a waste that the wife won't see any settlement money unless the mistress steps foot in North Carolina. It would be nice to get some of that settlement to at least pay off her legal fees.

What a sad thing to do, especially when it was during pregnancy. I bet all friends of the mistress are now asking themselves if their husbands did the same. Time for Urban Combat Catfight.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What, the husband had no free will or something? What is this?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am sure this woman will exact her vengeance upon the louse she married too.

But I completely agree with the settlement. The homewrecking tramp knew exactly what she was doing, and deserved to be sued. What a couple of low class low life scum.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 


Oh, no worries - I would bet the husband will get his in divorce court.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The fact that she will not have to pay the money if she stays out of NC aside:

Totally stupid law/civil case. There is no real monetary loss there by the wife, thus, no damages to rectify. The husband could have cheated with anyone and the marriage would have ended the same way. It's dependent on the other married person. The Spouse made the vow (gave his word) not the friend, and breaking that vow could mean larger divorce settlement (which would be fine), but to sue her is beyond stupid.

Sure, she knew what she was doing, but supporting this sort of trash laws and misuse of the civil system is entirely nonsensical.

Period

Peace
KJ





edit on 9-9-2010 by KrazyJethro because: Cause I wanted to baby...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


While the woman know what she was doing (and yes it was wrong in my opinion), the husband knew as well. It was the husband who vowed to keep the sanctity of the marriage not the other woman.

I do not agree with the settlement, it makes it seem as if the other woman had taken a vow to not become attracted to the man. It is not ones choice on who they are attracted to, it might be a choice to act on it or not, but we are not responsible for who we are attracted to. The man simply could have said I do not think my wife would appreciate if I were to get involved with another woman and left it at that, he made the choice to engage in the relationship. I suspect it was the man who got the ball rolling to begin with.

The wife should only be allowed to sue the husband/ex-husband, not the mistress.

Raist



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I disagree. I think it is quite acceptable for the wronged party to sue both perpetrators of wrongdoing.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


What real wrong did she do to her though?

She did not slander her, cause her abuse, or destroy any of her property. She certainly did not force the woman’s husband to get into a relationship with her. The other woman could not have done a thing if the man had not acted. This lies solely on the man as he made the final choice to go for it. I have never understood why someone gets mad at the other party when someone cheats. The problem lies with the other person in the relationship not those they cheat with.

We can say she helped the relationship to happen but in the end the man made the choice. Unless you or the wife can prove she forced the man into that relationship I see this as an unfair judgment and nothing more than vengeance. It was an abuse of the court system.

Raist



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Perfect stranger
 


I despise what the mistress did, but she never made a vow to the wife. The husband did. He made a vow promising his devotion and loyalty for the rest of his life to his wife. The mistress made no such promise. The mistress did something immoral and wrong, but the husband did all of that x 1000. He should be punished by the law.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join