Latest / I Do, Part 2 / A TikTok Influencer Owes Her Husband’s Ex-Wife Nearly $2 Million For Stealing Him From Her

Transcript

A TikTok Influencer Owes Her Husband’s Ex-Wife Nearly $2 Million For Stealing Him From Her · I Do, Part 2

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, November the fifteenth, and
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: this week huge headline that a woman was ordered to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: pay one point seven five million dollars and who does
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: she have to pay it to? The woman whose husband
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: she allegedly stole with that, Welcome to this episode of
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Amy and TJ ropes. This is making more headlines, yes,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: because of that, but also a TikTok influencer, I guess
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: a pretty influential one is involved in this story. But
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the story was everywhere this week.
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, this was crazy TikTok influencer Brene Canard, and
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: she has almost three million followers. So yes, she is consequential,
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: certainly given just her reach. But she is now married
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: to Tim Montague. The problem was he used to be
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: married to a Kira Montague and Kira says that Brene
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: stole her husband and a jury agreed and awarded that
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: astronomical amount of money as an award settlement.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Well, folks are scratching their head. You're hearing it right. Yes,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: a woman whose husband ended up in a relationship with
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: another woman sued the quote unquote mistress and she won.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: Now a lot of people here then go, what the
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: hell was going on a lot of people here, then
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: go wait, this sounds familiar. These laws have been around
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: for a long time, but not in a lot of places,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: and North Carolina still has it on the books, Brot.
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: Honestly it is.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: I did some deep diving on this one because I
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: hadn't heard of this. You mentioned a famous case which
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: we will get into, where it came to your attention,
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: alienation of affection that is on the books in North
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: Carolina and six other states. So there are seven states
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: in this country that still continue that. I but since
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: you said, yeahwa, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota,
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: and Utah. And the interesting thing is when I go, yeah,
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: when I started googling it, basically this used to be
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: common practice, but every other state has abolished, like took
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: the extra step of banning or abolishing this law, taking
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: it off of basically their books.
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: In each other state.
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: It was rooted in this notion that mostly it was
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: women who were considered property of women. So if another
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: man came and stole your wife, he stole your property,
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: so to speak. So there was a way to basically
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: have some way to make someone pay for stealing your property.
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: That was what it was rooted.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well you're talking about rooted in ancient times. As
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: it goes back to ancient times in certain parts of Europe,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: I believe it was where you could actually kill. You
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: were allowed to kill the man who slept with your wife.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Now it evolved over time to become something where you
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: could be compensated, because as we know, it's not necessarily
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: always the case here. Now it's supposed to be love
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: and romance, and you do it because you're sparing your soulmate.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: But these are business transactions in a lot of ways
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: and have been historically. So, yeah, your property is lost,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: you're losing something. You need to compensate me for it
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: so I can go now purchase a new wife. That
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: is what we're talking about. That stuff made its way
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: to the United States in different forms, but this country
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: for a long time, just about everybody had one on
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: the book career, every state.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: And just for the mere fact that forty three states
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: have taken this off of their books says a lot
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: about what this law is.
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: I was surprised.
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is obviously, like you said, an ancient law,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: so to speak. It's antiquated at the very least. So
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: it's fascinating and frankly a little shocking to see it
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: actually play out and have someone oh one woman, oh
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: another woman almost two million dollars right now.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: We're saying it this way, but it can be a
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: man owing another man. This can go both ways. And
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: that was a part of what they thought was equality,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: if you will, Robes, because he came about that's saying, hey,
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: if it's good for this side, it's good for that side.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: So yes, the woman can sue, the man can sue.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: So this was supposed to be it was supposed to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: be something well, this was supposed to be progressive, if
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: you will, back in the day that women could also.
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: Oh the irony. Okay, yeah.
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: So basically, this law allows a spouse to file a
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: lawsuit against a third party if they believe that person
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: caused the other spouse to end their marriage. My problem
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: with this is literally, there is no culpability for the
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: person who was in the marriage who broke the contract
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: of marriage. Isn't that what divorce settlements are all about.
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: Isn't that what those remedies allow for. So it's interesting
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: to me that in this specific case, the husband who's
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: was just as much a part of all of this
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: literally gets out of this without any sort of scolding
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: or financial responsibility. I mean, I know he's married to
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: her now, so I guess they're going to share that
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: financial burden.
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: But it's still like, it doesn't make a lot of
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: sense to me.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Well, you cannot, and the law does not allow for
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the spouse to soothe the spouse, So the spouse can't.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: You're getting divorced from someone, So we're gonna do with
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: all of our back and forth and how we're splitting
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: up finances, and I all that back and forth is there.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: You can't then tell your spouse, well, you cheated on me,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: so now I can sue you elsewhere that's not allowed.
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: So the spouse who was cheated on.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Your only option for going after somebody is the person
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: you think alienated the affection of your spouse. And it's
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: very specific. It's fairly hard to prove. It comes up
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: more often than you would think, but you have to
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: meet certain criteria and one of those number one roads.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: And I don't know how hard this is for most people,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: to prove that you had a solid, committed, loving, real
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: marriage to begin with.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Yes, that had to be the case, and this other
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: person literally, through malicious intent, seduced your partner into leaving
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: the marriage.
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: And that is a part of it.
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: And so when you start reading the details of what
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: allegedly happened in this case, you could see they clearly
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: laid this out. I do want to point out it
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: was a little gross in researching this and googling it,
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: seeing attorneys and law firms, and I get this is
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: the business they are in.
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: But they said, you know, considering.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: A divorce or in the middle of a divorce, did
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: you know about this law, and almost incentivizing financially incentivizing
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: people who were in the middle of a divorce to
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: see if this law applied to their situation and whether
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: or not they could sue, Like encouraging people to be
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: litigious if there was some sort of extramarital affair.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: What do we call it on the street. You call
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: them ambulance chasers. Yes, okay, this is just in different form.
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: That's all. They don't.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're recruiting their advertising saying yes, yes, yes, this
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: is possible. And again how difficult that is to prove
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: because you had a loving marriage and then this person.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: This isn't just about cheating, it's not.
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: You don't even have to have had sex, and yep.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: So this is not a about sex, is not it.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: You have to prove that your marriage diminished from the
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: loving thing that it was to something else and it
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: was directly this other person's.
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: Fault, and it was of malicious intent.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: Right. So, in this particular case, Akira Montague's husband, Tim Montague,
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: was Brenee Canard's manager, and Brenee, of course, is the
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: TikTok influencer who has nearly three million followers. Akira accused
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: Brene of engaging quote in behavior designed to seduce her husband,
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: and she listed what she claims Brenee did, including wearing
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: short skirts, bending over in front of her husband with
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: said short skirt on or belief flirting with him and
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: this is actually specifically referenced, flicking her tongue to expose
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: her tongue rings in a flirtatious manner.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Okay, I mean those are specific things. Someone flirted with
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: someone who was not available, and that is wrong. And
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: it's amazing to hear those things listed as evidence.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: That exactly, and that was the evidence that was in
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: addition to the fact that she said Canard used the
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: personal information she gained from their friendship to seduce her husband,
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: and she said that Canard and her husband exchanged numerous
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: sexual videos and text messages and met in the Montague's
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: marital home making these videos.
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: In fact, I believe she found one of the videos,
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: and that is.
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: How she knew or first realized that her husband was
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: no longer interested as much in her. In fact, she
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: said that her husband began to withdraw emotionally from her
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: as a direct result of Yard's seduction, and then she
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: also went on to say that he began concealing his
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: financial matters and expenses. I'm quoting this, including hiding the
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: many outings, dates, transactions, and payments involving Canard.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: You're proving a relationship, but you still have to approve.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: You have to connect these dots, and apparently she was
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: able to do it, or at least able to do
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: it enough that a.
• 9:22
  Speaker 4: This is a jury.
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: Yes, it was a jury of her peers.
• 9:25
  Speaker 4: Able to prove this enough? How you do that in court?
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: I would be fascinated to watch one of these, but
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: to prove that the marriage suffered the emotion you lost
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: emotionally and it was directly this person's fault. Again, you
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: spoke about the sex thing that can happen, and two
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: people never engaged in an affair, never engaged in a
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: physical a sexual affair, you could still be sued for
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: alienation of affection.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: I have to tell you this is the first I
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: have ever heard of this, and you mentioned there is
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: another famous case.
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: But here's what.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Canard was actually found liad before engaging in criminal conver
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: sation with Tim Montague, an alienation of affection during his marriage.
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: That is, that was the allegation, and that is what
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: she found. Was found liable.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: For criminal conversation. I don't know why they call it that.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: It's a bizarre term to use, if you will, but
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: what we're talking about sex, that's what they call it.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: They had criminal conversation. It's not sex. It's just sex,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: that's all it means.
• 10:26
  Speaker 4: But it was an interesting way to put it there.
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: Oooh yes, And so she actually the penalty for criminal
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: conversation was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: she got another one point five million in damages for
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: the actual alienation of affection.
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: Who that was an expensive well, second marriage, I guess
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: for that.
• 10:47
  Speaker 4: But what is Canard? She?
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Of course she had a response to this. I thought
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: the response was bizarre. I didn't exactly understand it. But
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: also we didn't get too much into this. She was,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: she was out there. She wasn't hiding that she was
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: involved with this guy. That was the part I didn't
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: quite piece together that.
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: Well, well, she did not.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: It took her a while to admit that this was
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: going on, that she was even in a relationship with
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: him before she was confronted. And then I will say
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: the two of them actually got married pretty quickly after
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: their divorce was final because she she had been further
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: complicating this, Canard had been married to Montague's cousin, so
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: there was a lot of legs to.
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: All of this.
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: Specifically, and certainly she had to pay the price, and
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: she's claiming she'll never pay it. She said she'll never
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: get paid. That was part of her response. Good luck
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: getting this money from me.
• 11:45
  Speaker 4: I don't know.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: That means you appeal and I don't know how this
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: eventually goes.
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: You know what?
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: This is what happens. And the reason I know this
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: is because I was recently watching an OJ Simpson documentary
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: to where they the family of Ron Goldwin were awarded
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: all this money, they said, yet we're awarded it, but
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: there's no follow up from the court to make sure
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: it comes to us.
• 12:05
  Speaker 4: I just heard this.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: There's nothing necessarily holding anybody responsible for paying that money.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: So maybe that's it, and that.
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: Just came in.
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: Well, you look at like even go to an extreme
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: case of OJ Simpson being found, like you said, libel
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: in the civil case, the family members of Nicole Brown
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: and Ron Goldman had never got a penny ever, like,
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: not one cent from OJ Simpson because even though he
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: was told he owed them X amount of dollars, he
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: just found ways of making money in other ways, through property,
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: through whatever, so he never ended up having to actually
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: make that payment to them. And that's certainly what it
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: seems like, maybe the case right now with Cannard for sure.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: So we mentioned that there was another famous case. Do
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: you all remember American idol Alum and certainly a singing
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: phenom phantas just goes by Fantasia, She was involved in
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: a very similar or the threat of a very similar
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: lawsuit in the exact same state of North Carolina. When
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: we come back, we'll tell you all about that and
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: welcome back and continuing our conversation on this alienation of
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: affection law that is on the books in seven states,
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: including the state of North Carolina. And we have obviously
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: this recent case with a TikTok star and her now
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: husband being the ex wife of her now husband, being
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: awarded one point seventy five million dollars because the jury
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: believed that this TikTok influencer, Brene Canard seduced her husband,
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: literally stole her husband from her, and so she was
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: awarded one point seven five million dollars. Back in twenty ten,
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: Fantasia of American idol fame was threatened to be sued
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: by her then boyfriend's wife soon to be ex wife,
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: Paula Cook, and reportedly Fantasia offered her one hundred thousand
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: dollars just to make it all go away, and Paula
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: Cook said, uh uh, that's not good enough, and she
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: had plans, she said, to move forward and sue Fantasa.
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: You remembered this story from way back when I did not, Oh, ye.
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: As well, I first got familiar with this and she was,
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: I mean that many years ago. She was again cobviously
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: she's a superstar, but she was still at the height
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: of a lot of her post American idol stardom around
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: that time, and this was a tough It was a
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: why do I remember this from It's around the time
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: she was doing color purple on stage because I was
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: working with her and dealing with her at that time,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: and this might have been why I got familiar with it.
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: But it's a it was an ugly, ugly hit. It
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: may just sounds awful when you hear those details, but
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: her story was one the other person couldn't prove a
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: lot of those details. The criteria that you need to
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: prove alienation of affection.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: To your point, it's a tough thing to prove. So
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: Paula Cook, this was a messy divorce between Paula Cook
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: and her then husband, Antwin Cook. So they're in the
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: middle of their divorce proceedings and she says, I she
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: announced to everyone that she was going to sue Fantasia
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: for alienation of affection because she said that Fantasia was
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: the reason why her husband was leaving her and going
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: on with Fantasia. Now, Fantasia had claimed she initially didn't
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: even know that he was married. She knew that he
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: was married, but she thought they were separated and that
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: they were already living a part that she wasn't doing
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: anything untoward. And turns out the judge in that divorce
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: case ruled that Antoine Cook was in fact separated from
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: his wife before he and Fantasia started dating. So the
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: date in which they began dating and the date in
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: which this marriage was good or not good played a
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: huge to the point that it had. You have to
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: prove that your marriage was in a good place when
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: this happened.
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: You know another part of this, I'm not sure. I
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: don't think we did mention that you also have to
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: you have to prove that the person outside your marriage
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: was actually aware that.
• 16:17
  Speaker 4: You were married.
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: Right, it's if you didn't know any said he was
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: single and no, you can't be health appul filmed.
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: And that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: So yeah, the court determined, I don't know how you
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: figured out that Fantasia's then boyfriend and his wife were
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: separated in September of the year before versus June of
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: twenty ten, which she was claiming. So they were arguing
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: at what point they were separated, at what point their
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: marriage went sour. It's I'm amazed when you look and
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: see the week's this week's decision by this jury that
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: they were able or that she was able to prove
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: that her marriage was good.
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: How do you prove that to a jury.
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: I wish I wish we'd have got ensued.
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: I would love to have gone to court and proven
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: our case. It's something we never got to do, and
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: you can't do it in the court of public opinion.
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: But these things, look, people have, Look, marriages and break
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: up all these things can be messy. And North Carolina
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: gives your way to make it even messier if you will,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: at least from a public standpoint. Look, that woman felt
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: she was wrong. She has the right to do what
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: she did, period point point. That's nothing else to talk
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: about it. Should we still have these laws on the books.
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: That's to be debated, potentially, but they're there in some places.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: They it's bizarre. They just seem bizarre to think that
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: anyone could steal something from you. It's not yours, right,
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: We're still talking about people and oftentimes women, as property
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: of some kind.
• 17:47
  Speaker 4: It's it's it's bizarre.
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, And in this case, it was the man who
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: basically is being regarded as a piece of property. You
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: took what was mine I guess I just take issue
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: with the whole concept of a relationship that anyone is
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: someone else's property, or that your mind or that I'm yours.
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: We can choose to be together, we can choose to
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: make different decisions based on what's best for us, and yes,
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: you may have to deal with the messiness of divorce
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: and pay the price of that. But to actually have
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: a judgment against you but not the other person, it
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: takes two to tango, like the whole thing, the idea
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: that and I think this is what's so funny in
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: the idea of as you mentioned equality, that women could
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: then use this law for their own purposes. I do
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: find it a little disturbing because it goes back to
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: that old playbook that so many I've always I've always
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: been uncomfortable with this concept that somehow a woman's going
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: to be upset at the other woman instead of being
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: upset at her own husband.
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: If that's who made.
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: The value you, that's who went into a contract with you,
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: a legally binding contract with you. That is the person
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: who I feel like you betrayed you in the sense
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: that you that's the person who vowed to be with him.
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: Does it feel like it takes some responsibility off the spouse. Yes,
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: by saying, well, he just couldn't help himself. He was
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: just pressured into that. No, really, it seems in this
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: case that's the argument that's being made.
• 19:17
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's fascinating to me that these laws are on
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: the books in some states.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: It's fascinating to me that a jury actually awarded this
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: woman that much money.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: Oh shit, Oh, I didn't forgot to mention. This is
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: not even close. There was another one in North Carolina.
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: A woman got thirty million. There was a thirty million
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: dollar case. I don't think it was that long ago.
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: I believe it was twenty eleven. Forgive me, but I
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: don't have that right. But it's not that long ago.
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: She was married to a guy who was like a
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: trucking company tycoon or something. There sue this other woman.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Sure nough thirty million dollar ward. Also in North Carolina,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: Fletcher Cox, I think it was his name, NFL player.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: This was more recent. I think it was twenty eighteen.
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: They settled out of court, but a guy sued him
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: saying that he was having an affair with the wife,
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: and the NFL player got Yeah. In North Carolina. Wow, Yeah,
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: thirty million. That is what I forgot about that.
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: And you know what, It's funny because when you look
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: at the states, when you google where this is still
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: a legal course of action in all the states, it
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: just says recognizes, recognizes, recognizes this law. North Carolina, it adds,
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: recognized this alienation of affection and is one of the states.
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: Where it is still frequently litigated.
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: So for whatever reason, maybe it's the attorneys in North
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: Carolina who understand this is an avenue where people can
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: seek some sort of financial They can reclaim some sort
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: of financial gain because of what happened to them or
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: are wrong that they believe was done to them. This
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: is an avenue where you can say, hey, yes, I
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: can financially get some money. And obviously the lawyers line
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: their pockets at the same time.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: But you call I mean for the people on that side. Well,
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: the woman who whoever whatever she might have gone through
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: a cure at Montague, Yes, what she went to look
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: if she feels she was in a loving relationship, she
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: feels that her husband in that relationship would still be
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: good and solid had this other person not entered their lives.
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: And I don't know, we think about you said the vow,
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: and I guess that's right. I'm trying to find some
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: way of being on the side of the law in
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: North Carolina.
• 21:22
  Speaker 4: I'm trying to.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: Find a way to go okay, that there is value
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: in doing it this way. I'm struggling with that, but
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: I don't want to take away from what she's been
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: she's been through and feels. But if you can understand
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: and respect and honor how she feels, it doesn't also
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: necessarily mean you need to give her two million dollars
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: from the person outside of America.
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: And I just think I would also just want to
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: end with the perspective that there is a reason why
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: the majority of states in this nation chose to get.
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: Rid of this law.
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: For whatever reasons, each individual state had to get rid
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: of it. But there are only yes, seven and states
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: in this country where you can sue for this this
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: uh seemingly art well, it's not seemingly archaic law that
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: is modern and certainly paying out in.
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: This specific case in North Carolina. Who knew? At least
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: I didn't. But with that hope you learned something. Everyone.
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: I may be robot alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk
• 22:22
  Speaker 3: to you soon.