Wife Sues "Other Woman," Awarded $9M
When a marriage breaks up, there sometimes can be a third party. But being the "other man" or "other woman" can cost you: In seven states, you can sue the woman or man you believe broke up your marriage. And recently, this centuries' old law helped one North Carolina woman win big -- $9 million big.
Under a law called "alienation of affection" Cynthia Shackelford, 60, of Raleigh, sued Anne Lundquist, 49, of Aurora, N.Y., charging that she broke up her marriage.
"Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez reported the concept dates back to common law, when a wife was considered property that could be stolen.
Some attorneys find the law archaic.
Tina Schuchman, a family law attorney, told CBS News, "It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. And the trend is more and more toward shutting it down."
But in Cynthia Shackelford's case, the law was upheld in a big way. She won $5 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.
However, Allan Shackelford claims his marriage didn't fail because of Lundquist.
In a online post to his local newspaper, he said his wife "... wanted to divorce him at least two years before he began a relationship with Anne Lundquist. (The) marriage did not break-up because of Anne Lundquist."
But on "The Early Show," Cynthia Shackelford said she didn't say she was going to divorce him at all. At that time, Cynthia Shackleford said, she and her husband were working on improvements to their home, so their children could come over after they got married with their children.
"I had no idea that there was divorce in the future," she said. "... It was all news to me."
Cynthia Shackelford added that she didn't believe her husband was cheating.
"I didn't believe it because I trusted him," she said. "And he had told me that they were just friends. And any time any affair was mentioned it was alleged. So I just kept on and on, and just saw the path of our marriage was not doing well. And it seemed like she was always calling our house and he was always taking her home and one thing led to another."
But why sue the other woman? Rodriguez pointed out that she wasn't the one who made marriage vows.
Cynthia Shackelford responded, "But she's the one that came in between us as far as her luring ways, and which I had plenty of proof from e-mails, phone records, spending, that she alienated him from me. She used work and other ways to get in and get friendly with him, and it's like those Lifetime movies or whatever that you see that she just worked her way."
Rodriguez noted that Lundquist has said she doesn't have $9 million to pay Cynthia Shackelford.
"I'm not in it for the money, but I wouldn't believe anything she had to say anyway," Cynthia Shackelford said, adding, "But I'm just trying to send a message to other people that are like Anne (Lundquist), that if they're looking at somebody else's husband -- that's still living at home, that's still sleeping in the marital bed and comes to parties and introduces his wife at his better half -- to leave him alone and not go after him."
Lundquist is appealing the $9 million decision. But Cynthia Shackelford's lawyer Will Jordan said he believes the decision will stand.
As for the marriage law referenced in this case, Lundquist likened it to laws against people who tamper with contracts.
"Perhaps if one network tried to lure you to another against your contract, there would be a suit for interference with contract rights," he explained. "And 'alienation of affection' is very similar to that."
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. Under a law called "alienation of affection" Cynthia Shackelford, 60, of Raleigh, sued Anne Lundquist, 49, of Aurora, N.Y., charging that she broke up her marriage.
"Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez reported the concept dates back to common law, when a wife was considered property that could be stolen.
Some attorneys find the law archaic.
Tina Schuchman, a family law attorney, told CBS News, "It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. And the trend is more and more toward shutting it down."
But in Cynthia Shackelford's case, the law was upheld in a big way. She won $5 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.
However, Allan Shackelford claims his marriage didn't fail because of Lundquist.
In a online post to his local newspaper, he said his wife "... wanted to divorce him at least two years before he began a relationship with Anne Lundquist. (The) marriage did not break-up because of Anne Lundquist."
But on "The Early Show," Cynthia Shackelford said she didn't say she was going to divorce him at all. At that time, Cynthia Shackleford said, she and her husband were working on improvements to their home, so their children could come over after they got married with their children.
"I had no idea that there was divorce in the future," she said. "... It was all news to me."
Cynthia Shackelford added that she didn't believe her husband was cheating.
"I didn't believe it because I trusted him," she said. "And he had told me that they were just friends. And any time any affair was mentioned it was alleged. So I just kept on and on, and just saw the path of our marriage was not doing well. And it seemed like she was always calling our house and he was always taking her home and one thing led to another."
But why sue the other woman? Rodriguez pointed out that she wasn't the one who made marriage vows.
Cynthia Shackelford responded, "But she's the one that came in between us as far as her luring ways, and which I had plenty of proof from e-mails, phone records, spending, that she alienated him from me. She used work and other ways to get in and get friendly with him, and it's like those Lifetime movies or whatever that you see that she just worked her way."
Rodriguez noted that Lundquist has said she doesn't have $9 million to pay Cynthia Shackelford.
"I'm not in it for the money, but I wouldn't believe anything she had to say anyway," Cynthia Shackelford said, adding, "But I'm just trying to send a message to other people that are like Anne (Lundquist), that if they're looking at somebody else's husband -- that's still living at home, that's still sleeping in the marital bed and comes to parties and introduces his wife at his better half -- to leave him alone and not go after him."
Lundquist is appealing the $9 million decision. But Cynthia Shackelford's lawyer Will Jordan said he believes the decision will stand.
As for the marriage law referenced in this case, Lundquist likened it to laws against people who tamper with contracts.
"Perhaps if one network tried to lure you to another against your contract, there would be a suit for interference with contract rights," he explained. "And 'alienation of affection' is very similar to that."
- Lorena Bobbitt, 15 Years Later
- Most of Forbes' most powerful women are moms
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- New tornadoes hit Midwest Play Video
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Fast Food Sales Up Play Video
I think Ms. Shackleford should garnish that woman's wages for as long as she can (I'm sure the other woman will file bankruptcy eventually). It would serve that other woman right, because I'm sure that Ms. Shackleford has probably also suffered not only as far as her feelings go, but also financially.
I worked at a restaurant and I even had a man run back in after seeing his wife to their car and try to talk to me and ask for my number. For what?!
It just becomes worse when I read things like this, ?We had a great marriage. He was very affectionate. We have two wonderful children. I mean, this is all a shock to me.? I think this woman might have some misconceptions of a good marriage. Especially the children part. Did she really think two adorable children would stop a man from dropping trou for some extramarital activity?
There are also those women who could careless if a man was married or had children. They didn?t have to hold those men at gun point just so that they would sleep with them once, twice, or even for years.
Things aren't fair. Things don't work out. Things happen out of our control. Sometimes, things ARE are own fault and it's not fair to blame someone else. I think a spurned spouse ought to first take responsbility for her own part in a weakened marriage. I did. I saw what I did wrong and tried hard to fix it. But, in the end, we had just grown up differently than we'd expected and he wasn't happy. After the divorce, I was finally able to admit to myself that i wasn't happy either and be grateful for the divorce. But, in the middle, I was thrashing about for someone to blame and I could have really hurt someone who did not deserve it.
This law supports the kind of logic that would allow a man to go into a daycare center and shoot up everyone there because he thought his girlfriend be breaking up with him because she was spending too much time at work.
Carry the logic of this law all the way out and you see how extreme and fanatical it is. It is a law for fanatics - and well, maybe that's what the hicks in Appalachia are anyway.
@lorisarisner: we can all tell you're bitter but you shouldn't blame another woman. Did she hold your husband at gun point and kidnap him from your "really big home" and sleep with him? You should seriously report that to the police. If she didn't, then he left of his own free will. If you still feel bitter maybe meet with him and take the opportunity to see what went wrong? That way you can avoid a similar situation in the future if you ever feel your heart is strong enough to get over what you lost.
What if you were talking to your coworker with no intentions whatsoever romantically and his wife freaked out and sued you, producing phone records between your cell phones - work-related - and accusing that you ruined the marriage - there is no defense in court with this law. And what if you had your picture and name all over the place as a homewrecker and were called the names we associate with the other woman - For the rest of your life - and what if there was nothing you could do about it, except keep repeating that you were not guilty - but lost your job, home, reputation, etc. because of one bitter and vindictive woman with a good lawyer? Think about this from the third side - there are not just two side to this case.