American Idol winner Fantasia Barrino is in deep, deep caca and she knows it. That is probably why she took all those pills. She figured if she was dead…well, actually, I don’t want to go there. I just want to stick to the issues. Can she win this lawsuit that was filed against her by her ex-boyfriend’s wife?
Lee Rosen in an attorney out in North Carolina and he is a good resource for this issue of “alienation of affection” and “criminal conversation” jurisprudence. I’ve seen him on TV and he’s got a radio show so this guy knows what he’s talking about. I took the liberty of uploading a quote from his blog on this issue of criminal conversation. Here is what he says that “criminal conversation” is and how to defend it.
Criminal conversation is the name for a civil lawsuit sounding in tort (a kind of injury to the person) based on sexual intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiff’s spouse. Criminal conversation is something like a “strict liability tort” because the only things the plaintiff has to prove are (1) an act of intercourse and (2) the existence of a valid marriage between the plaintiff and the adulterous spouse, and (3) the bringing of the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. The only obvious defense to a claim for criminal conversation is that the plaintiff and his/her spouse were separated and intended for their separation to be permanent.
Ok. Well, right away when I read that I trembled a little bit for Fantasia. Because strict liability is no joke. It means, no matter what, you’re on the hook for what you are accused of. It don’t matter (I know that “doesn’t” is the grammatically correct contraction but I’m slanging at the moment) what your intentions were, what you knew or didn’t know. You are GUILTY.
I mean, that sex tape. It is so incriminating. If it exists there’s no way out of that one. I mean, in your face. Guilty. Done.
BUT. Not really. Because Rosen did say that there is a tiny little thing you can argue. And that is that the plaintiff and defendant were separated and intended it to be separated at the time you had the sex with the spouse.
OK. So what does that mean for Fantasia? Well, she has to argue that the Peck’s bad boy husband was separated and living apart from his wife at the time she made that sex tape (why the hell do people make sex tapes? What is up with all these sex tapes with these celebrities???). Hopefully she will be able to show he was living with her and had moved out of the marital abode. That should help a little bit. Maybe emails and correspondences on her computer that he had with the wife saying stuff like, “it’s over. I love Fanny.” That kind of thing would help. And, of course, witnesses that heard him say it was over; or saw him living with Fantasia….Jeeze. I really hope there is no sex tape. But there are videos of them cavorting on a speedboat. And he’s a good looking son of a ____ so you know she was totally in luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuve and that he was aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall that. Yea sure. Yea right, Fantasia. Whatever, girrrrrrlll.
My big question is: Did those two people set up that girl? Something is very fishy about the whole thing….Did they set her up to get her money?
As for the alienation of affection claim. I think that fails on its face. And why? Because of what Lee Rosen says that alienation of affection is in North Carolina. Again, from Rosen’s website:
To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact on the marriage. Thus, defendant has a defense against an alienation claim — but not to a claim for criminal conversation — where it can be shown that defendant did not know that the object of his or her affections was in fact married.
NOW. Here’s the thing with this one that makes me say Fantasia wins off the bat. I mean, if the press reports are true, that is: the husband and wife are back together. That means the wife can’t win the prong of the test that requires her to show that the affection was “alienated and destroyed.” It ain’t destroyed if they are back together!
So that closes that case right there.
This law is ridiculous and needs to change. You can’t blame third parties for this kind of thing. Fantasia did not kidnap him and rape him. He was a willing participant and was probably the aggressor. He’s not a helpless baby who was overcome by her great beauty. He wanted to do what he wanted to do and he did it, wife or no wife. He failed his wife. He had a vow he made to his wife and he violated that. Fantasia made his wife no promises. Fantasia took no vows with his wife. It is totally ridiculous to blame Fantasia for the free actions of this man. It’s time to stop blaming women for men’s sexual indiscretions. It’s time to hold men accountable for their own sexual choices. Men are not helpless little boys. They know what they are doing. They know what the want. And most time, it is men who are the aggressors preying on single women. This idea of “the other woman stealing someone’s husband” is as archaic and ridiculous as the ban on gay marriage. It’s one of those concepts that goes to the old marriage concept we talked about here that needs to make way for the new marriage era in which we live.
This law in North Carolina has really, really gotta get off the books.
In the meantime, Fantasia ought to learn important lesson(s) from this. Because at at the end of the day, she should have told that son of a _________ to go get a divorce before she went anywhere near him.
Follow us on twitter for updates on this story and others at: www.twitter.com/divorcesaloon