1
00:00:02,120 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, November the fifteenth, and

2
00:00:05,680 --> 00:00:10,000
Speaker 1: this week huge headline that a woman was ordered to

3
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:15,080
Speaker 1: pay one point seven five million dollars and who does

4
00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 1: she have to pay it to? The woman whose husband

5
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,160
Speaker 1: she allegedly stole with that, Welcome to this episode of

6
00:00:24,200 --> 00:00:28,120
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ ropes. This is making more headlines, yes,

7
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:31,160
Speaker 1: because of that, but also a TikTok influencer, I guess

8
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:33,320
Speaker 1: a pretty influential one is involved in this story. But

9
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:34,480
Speaker 1: the story was everywhere this week.

10
00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:40,319
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, this was crazy TikTok influencer Brene Canard, and

11
00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:44,400
Speaker 2: she has almost three million followers. So yes, she is consequential,

12
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:49,239
Speaker 2: certainly given just her reach. But she is now married

13
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 2: to Tim Montague. The problem was he used to be

14
00:00:54,840 --> 00:01:00,480
Speaker 2: married to a Kira Montague and Kira says that Brene

15
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 2: stole her husband and a jury agreed and awarded that

16
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 2: astronomical amount of money as an award settlement.

17
00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 1: Well, folks are scratching their head. You're hearing it right. Yes,

18
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 1: a woman whose husband ended up in a relationship with

19
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 1: another woman sued the quote unquote mistress and she won.

20
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:25,399
Speaker 1: Now a lot of people here then go, what the

21
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: hell was going on a lot of people here, then

22
00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:29,800
Speaker 1: go wait, this sounds familiar. These laws have been around

23
00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:31,840
Speaker 1: for a long time, but not in a lot of places,

24
00:01:31,840 --> 00:01:34,760
Speaker 1: and North Carolina still has it on the books, Brot.

25
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 3: Honestly it is.

26
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:39,560
Speaker 2: I did some deep diving on this one because I

27
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:42,319
Speaker 2: hadn't heard of this. You mentioned a famous case which

28
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:44,880
Speaker 2: we will get into, where it came to your attention,

29
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:50,000
Speaker 2: alienation of affection that is on the books in North

30
00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 2: Carolina and six other states. So there are seven states

31
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 2: in this country that still continue that. I but since

32
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:07,160
Speaker 2: you said, yeahwa, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota,

33
00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:11,799
Speaker 2: and Utah. And the interesting thing is when I go, yeah,

34
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:14,800
Speaker 2: when I started googling it, basically this used to be

35
00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 2: common practice, but every other state has abolished, like took

36
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 2: the extra step of banning or abolishing this law, taking

37
00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:27,600
Speaker 2: it off of basically their books.

38
00:02:27,600 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 3: In each other state.

39
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:34,680
Speaker 2: It was rooted in this notion that mostly it was

40
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 2: women who were considered property of women. So if another

41
00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 2: man came and stole your wife, he stole your property,

42
00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:43,360
Speaker 2: so to speak. So there was a way to basically

43
00:02:43,400 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 2: have some way to make someone pay for stealing your property.

44
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:48,360
Speaker 3: That was what it was rooted.

45
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:51,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you're talking about rooted in ancient times. As

46
00:02:51,080 --> 00:02:54,040
Speaker 1: it goes back to ancient times in certain parts of Europe,

47
00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:56,040
Speaker 1: I believe it was where you could actually kill. You

48
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,280
Speaker 1: were allowed to kill the man who slept with your wife.

49
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:02,080
Speaker 1: Now it evolved over time to become something where you

50
00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: could be compensated, because as we know, it's not necessarily

51
00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:07,720
Speaker 1: always the case here. Now it's supposed to be love

52
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 1: and romance, and you do it because you're sparing your soulmate.

53
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:13,560
Speaker 1: But these are business transactions in a lot of ways

54
00:03:13,560 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 1: and have been historically. So, yeah, your property is lost,

55
00:03:16,840 --> 00:03:19,200
Speaker 1: you're losing something. You need to compensate me for it

56
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:22,960
Speaker 1: so I can go now purchase a new wife. That

57
00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:25,120
Speaker 1: is what we're talking about. That stuff made its way

58
00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 1: to the United States in different forms, but this country

59
00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:30,680
Speaker 1: for a long time, just about everybody had one on

60
00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: the book career, every state.

61
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:36,160
Speaker 2: And just for the mere fact that forty three states

62
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,200
Speaker 2: have taken this off of their books says a lot

63
00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:41,320
Speaker 2: about what this law is.

64
00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:42,600
Speaker 3: I was surprised.

65
00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 2: I mean, this is obviously, like you said, an ancient law,

66
00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:48,480
Speaker 2: so to speak. It's antiquated at the very least. So

67
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:52,040
Speaker 2: it's fascinating and frankly a little shocking to see it

68
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:57,680
Speaker 2: actually play out and have someone oh one woman, oh

69
00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:01,600
Speaker 2: another woman almost two million dollars right now.

70
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 1: We're saying it this way, but it can be a

71
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: man owing another man. This can go both ways. And

72
00:04:06,840 --> 00:04:08,960
Speaker 1: that was a part of what they thought was equality,

73
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:13,320
Speaker 1: if you will, Robes, because he came about that's saying, hey,

74
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:15,800
Speaker 1: if it's good for this side, it's good for that side.

75
00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:18,320
Speaker 1: So yes, the woman can sue, the man can sue.

76
00:04:18,360 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: So this was supposed to be it was supposed to

77
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:22,919
Speaker 1: be something well, this was supposed to be progressive, if

78
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:25,600
Speaker 1: you will, back in the day that women could also.

79
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:27,440
Speaker 3: Oh the irony. Okay, yeah.

80
00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:31,200
Speaker 2: So basically, this law allows a spouse to file a

81
00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:35,279
Speaker 2: lawsuit against a third party if they believe that person

82
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,919
Speaker 2: caused the other spouse to end their marriage. My problem

83
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:44,200
Speaker 2: with this is literally, there is no culpability for the

84
00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:46,839
Speaker 2: person who was in the marriage who broke the contract

85
00:04:46,839 --> 00:04:49,440
Speaker 2: of marriage. Isn't that what divorce settlements are all about.

86
00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:53,760
Speaker 2: Isn't that what those remedies allow for. So it's interesting

87
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:58,680
Speaker 2: to me that in this specific case, the husband who's

88
00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:01,599
Speaker 2: was just as much a part of all of this

89
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:06,600
Speaker 2: literally gets out of this without any sort of scolding

90
00:05:06,760 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 2: or financial responsibility. I mean, I know he's married to

91
00:05:09,120 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 2: her now, so I guess they're going to share that

92
00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:11,800
Speaker 2: financial burden.

93
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:14,560
Speaker 3: But it's still like, it doesn't make a lot of

94
00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:15,120
Speaker 3: sense to me.

95
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:18,599
Speaker 1: Well, you cannot, and the law does not allow for

96
00:05:18,800 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 1: the spouse to soothe the spouse, So the spouse can't.

97
00:05:22,839 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 1: You're getting divorced from someone, So we're gonna do with

98
00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 1: all of our back and forth and how we're splitting

99
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:30,400
Speaker 1: up finances, and I all that back and forth is there.

100
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:33,880
Speaker 1: You can't then tell your spouse, well, you cheated on me,

101
00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:37,080
Speaker 1: so now I can sue you elsewhere that's not allowed.

102
00:05:37,160 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 4: So the spouse who was cheated on.

103
00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 1: Your only option for going after somebody is the person

104
00:05:44,080 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 1: you think alienated the affection of your spouse. And it's

105
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:51,040
Speaker 1: very specific. It's fairly hard to prove. It comes up

106
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:54,240
Speaker 1: more often than you would think, but you have to

107
00:05:54,279 --> 00:05:57,200
Speaker 1: meet certain criteria and one of those number one roads.

108
00:05:57,240 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 1: And I don't know how hard this is for most people,

109
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:04,440
Speaker 1: to prove that you had a solid, committed, loving, real

110
00:06:04,839 --> 00:06:05,800
Speaker 1: marriage to begin with.

111
00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 2: Yes, that had to be the case, and this other

112
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:15,840
Speaker 2: person literally, through malicious intent, seduced your partner into leaving

113
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:16,640
Speaker 2: the marriage.

114
00:06:16,680 --> 00:06:17,920
Speaker 3: And that is a part of it.

115
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:20,560
Speaker 2: And so when you start reading the details of what

116
00:06:20,720 --> 00:06:23,080
Speaker 2: allegedly happened in this case, you could see they clearly

117
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 2: laid this out. I do want to point out it

118
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:26,840
Speaker 2: was a little gross in researching this and googling it,

119
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:31,520
Speaker 2: seeing attorneys and law firms, and I get this is

120
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:32,480
Speaker 2: the business they are in.

121
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:34,760
Speaker 3: But they said, you know, considering.

122
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:36,640
Speaker 2: A divorce or in the middle of a divorce, did

123
00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:41,839
Speaker 2: you know about this law, and almost incentivizing financially incentivizing

124
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:44,840
Speaker 2: people who were in the middle of a divorce to

125
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:47,920
Speaker 2: see if this law applied to their situation and whether

126
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:50,640
Speaker 2: or not they could sue, Like encouraging people to be

127
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:53,919
Speaker 2: litigious if there was some sort of extramarital affair.

128
00:06:54,920 --> 00:06:56,640
Speaker 1: What do we call it on the street. You call

129
00:06:56,680 --> 00:07:01,040
Speaker 1: them ambulance chasers. Yes, okay, this is just in different form.

130
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:02,160
Speaker 4: That's all. They don't.

131
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're recruiting their advertising saying yes, yes, yes, this

132
00:07:05,120 --> 00:07:08,119
Speaker 1: is possible. And again how difficult that is to prove

133
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:10,960
Speaker 1: because you had a loving marriage and then this person.

134
00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:14,720
Speaker 1: This isn't just about cheating, it's not.

135
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 3: You don't even have to have had sex, and yep.

136
00:07:17,400 --> 00:07:20,800
Speaker 1: So this is not a about sex, is not it.

137
00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:24,720
Speaker 1: You have to prove that your marriage diminished from the

138
00:07:24,840 --> 00:07:26,880
Speaker 1: loving thing that it was to something else and it

139
00:07:26,920 --> 00:07:28,840
Speaker 1: was directly this other person's.

140
00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:30,720
Speaker 3: Fault, and it was of malicious intent.

141
00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:35,000
Speaker 2: Right. So, in this particular case, Akira Montague's husband, Tim Montague,

142
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 2: was Brenee Canard's manager, and Brenee, of course, is the

143
00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:43,280
Speaker 2: TikTok influencer who has nearly three million followers. Akira accused

144
00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:49,440
Speaker 2: Brene of engaging quote in behavior designed to seduce her husband,

145
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:53,800
Speaker 2: and she listed what she claims Brenee did, including wearing

146
00:07:53,920 --> 00:07:57,720
Speaker 2: short skirts, bending over in front of her husband with

147
00:07:57,960 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 2: said short skirt on or belief flirting with him and

148
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:06,880
Speaker 2: this is actually specifically referenced, flicking her tongue to expose

149
00:08:06,960 --> 00:08:09,080
Speaker 2: her tongue rings in a flirtatious manner.

150
00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean those are specific things. Someone flirted with

151
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: someone who was not available, and that is wrong. And

152
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,280
Speaker 1: it's amazing to hear those things listed as evidence.

153
00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:23,040
Speaker 2: That exactly, and that was the evidence that was in

154
00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 2: addition to the fact that she said Canard used the

155
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:32,480
Speaker 2: personal information she gained from their friendship to seduce her husband,

156
00:08:33,040 --> 00:08:37,200
Speaker 2: and she said that Canard and her husband exchanged numerous

157
00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:42,199
Speaker 2: sexual videos and text messages and met in the Montague's

158
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,800
Speaker 2: marital home making these videos.

159
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:46,959
Speaker 3: In fact, I believe she found one of the videos,

160
00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:47,559
Speaker 3: and that is.

161
00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:51,480
Speaker 2: How she knew or first realized that her husband was

162
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:54,800
Speaker 2: no longer interested as much in her. In fact, she

163
00:08:54,880 --> 00:08:57,400
Speaker 2: said that her husband began to withdraw emotionally from her

164
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:02,880
Speaker 2: as a direct result of Yard's seduction, and then she

165
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:05,080
Speaker 2: also went on to say that he began concealing his

166
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:08,880
Speaker 2: financial matters and expenses. I'm quoting this, including hiding the

167
00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:12,800
Speaker 2: many outings, dates, transactions, and payments involving Canard.

168
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:16,720
Speaker 1: You're proving a relationship, but you still have to approve.

169
00:09:16,880 --> 00:09:19,439
Speaker 1: You have to connect these dots, and apparently she was

170
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:21,080
Speaker 1: able to do it, or at least able to do

171
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:22,040
Speaker 1: it enough that a.

172
00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 4: This is a jury.

173
00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:25,600
Speaker 3: Yes, it was a jury of her peers.

174
00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 4: Able to prove this enough? How you do that in court?

175
00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 1: I would be fascinated to watch one of these, but

176
00:09:31,480 --> 00:09:36,000
Speaker 1: to prove that the marriage suffered the emotion you lost

177
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:39,840
Speaker 1: emotionally and it was directly this person's fault. Again, you

178
00:09:39,840 --> 00:09:42,560
Speaker 1: spoke about the sex thing that can happen, and two

179
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:45,679
Speaker 1: people never engaged in an affair, never engaged in a

180
00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: physical a sexual affair, you could still be sued for

181
00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:50,160
Speaker 1: alienation of affection.

182
00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:51,920
Speaker 2: I have to tell you this is the first I

183
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:54,280
Speaker 2: have ever heard of this, and you mentioned there is

184
00:09:54,320 --> 00:09:55,160
Speaker 2: another famous case.

185
00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:55,600
Speaker 3: But here's what.

186
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:59,840
Speaker 2: Canard was actually found liad before engaging in criminal conver

187
00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:05,000
Speaker 2: sation with Tim Montague, an alienation of affection during his marriage.

188
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:09,080
Speaker 2: That is, that was the allegation, and that is what

189
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:11,360
Speaker 2: she found. Was found liable.

190
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:14,520
Speaker 1: For criminal conversation. I don't know why they call it that.

191
00:10:14,559 --> 00:10:17,360
Speaker 1: It's a bizarre term to use, if you will, but

192
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:19,920
Speaker 1: what we're talking about sex, that's what they call it.

193
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:25,080
Speaker 1: They had criminal conversation. It's not sex. It's just sex,

194
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:26,440
Speaker 1: that's all it means.

195
00:10:26,880 --> 00:10:28,560
Speaker 4: But it was an interesting way to put it there.

196
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:32,800
Speaker 2: Oooh yes, And so she actually the penalty for criminal

197
00:10:32,840 --> 00:10:36,400
Speaker 2: conversation was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then

198
00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:38,880
Speaker 2: she got another one point five million in damages for

199
00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:41,160
Speaker 2: the actual alienation of affection.

200
00:10:42,240 --> 00:10:47,120
Speaker 3: Who that was an expensive well, second marriage, I guess

201
00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:47,400
Speaker 3: for that.

202
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:49,839
Speaker 4: But what is Canard? She?

203
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 1: Of course she had a response to this. I thought

204
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:54,920
Speaker 1: the response was bizarre. I didn't exactly understand it. But

205
00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:57,160
Speaker 1: also we didn't get too much into this. She was,

206
00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:01,520
Speaker 1: she was out there. She wasn't hiding that she was

207
00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:04,720
Speaker 1: involved with this guy. That was the part I didn't

208
00:11:04,760 --> 00:11:05,959
Speaker 1: quite piece together that.

209
00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 3: Well, well, she did not.

210
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:10,400
Speaker 2: It took her a while to admit that this was

211
00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:13,200
Speaker 2: going on, that she was even in a relationship with

212
00:11:13,280 --> 00:11:15,920
Speaker 2: him before she was confronted. And then I will say

213
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:20,199
Speaker 2: the two of them actually got married pretty quickly after

214
00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:23,079
Speaker 2: their divorce was final because she she had been further

215
00:11:23,120 --> 00:11:28,240
Speaker 2: complicating this, Canard had been married to Montague's cousin, so

216
00:11:28,600 --> 00:11:31,000
Speaker 2: there was a lot of legs to.

217
00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:31,560
Speaker 3: All of this.

218
00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:38,480
Speaker 2: Specifically, and certainly she had to pay the price, and

219
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:40,480
Speaker 2: she's claiming she'll never pay it. She said she'll never

220
00:11:40,520 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 2: get paid. That was part of her response. Good luck

221
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:43,880
Speaker 2: getting this money from me.

222
00:11:45,240 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 4: I don't know.

223
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:48,520
Speaker 1: That means you appeal and I don't know how this

224
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:49,440
Speaker 1: eventually goes.

225
00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:49,920
Speaker 4: You know what?

226
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 1: This is what happens. And the reason I know this

227
00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,840
Speaker 1: is because I was recently watching an OJ Simpson documentary

228
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:59,000
Speaker 1: to where they the family of Ron Goldwin were awarded

229
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:02,079
Speaker 1: all this money, they said, yet we're awarded it, but

230
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:04,560
Speaker 1: there's no follow up from the court to make sure

231
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:05,520
Speaker 1: it comes to us.

232
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:06,840
Speaker 4: I just heard this.

233
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:12,480
Speaker 1: There's nothing necessarily holding anybody responsible for paying that money.

234
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:15,840
Speaker 1: So maybe that's it, and that.

235
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:16,079
Speaker 4: Just came in.

236
00:12:16,280 --> 00:12:18,600
Speaker 2: Well, you look at like even go to an extreme

237
00:12:18,679 --> 00:12:22,040
Speaker 2: case of OJ Simpson being found, like you said, libel

238
00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:26,320
Speaker 2: in the civil case, the family members of Nicole Brown

239
00:12:26,679 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 2: and Ron Goldman had never got a penny ever, like,

240
00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:33,640
Speaker 2: not one cent from OJ Simpson because even though he

241
00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:36,439
Speaker 2: was told he owed them X amount of dollars, he

242
00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:39,240
Speaker 2: just found ways of making money in other ways, through property,

243
00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:42,360
Speaker 2: through whatever, so he never ended up having to actually

244
00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 2: make that payment to them. And that's certainly what it

245
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:48,760
Speaker 2: seems like, maybe the case right now with Cannard for sure.

246
00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:53,199
Speaker 2: So we mentioned that there was another famous case. Do

247
00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:58,760
Speaker 2: you all remember American idol Alum and certainly a singing

248
00:12:58,960 --> 00:13:03,760
Speaker 2: phenom phantas just goes by Fantasia, She was involved in

249
00:13:03,800 --> 00:13:07,280
Speaker 2: a very similar or the threat of a very similar

250
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:11,040
Speaker 2: lawsuit in the exact same state of North Carolina. When

251
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:14,000
Speaker 2: we come back, we'll tell you all about that and

252
00:13:22,160 --> 00:13:26,640
Speaker 2: welcome back and continuing our conversation on this alienation of

253
00:13:26,720 --> 00:13:30,440
Speaker 2: affection law that is on the books in seven states,

254
00:13:30,440 --> 00:13:35,120
Speaker 2: including the state of North Carolina. And we have obviously

255
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:39,120
Speaker 2: this recent case with a TikTok star and her now

256
00:13:39,240 --> 00:13:43,920
Speaker 2: husband being the ex wife of her now husband, being

257
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:48,640
Speaker 2: awarded one point seventy five million dollars because the jury

258
00:13:48,720 --> 00:13:54,440
Speaker 2: believed that this TikTok influencer, Brene Canard seduced her husband,

259
00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:57,400
Speaker 2: literally stole her husband from her, and so she was

260
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:01,800
Speaker 2: awarded one point seven five million dollars. Back in twenty ten,

261
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 2: Fantasia of American idol fame was threatened to be sued

262
00:14:07,400 --> 00:14:10,240
Speaker 2: by her then boyfriend's wife soon to be ex wife,

263
00:14:10,440 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 2: Paula Cook, and reportedly Fantasia offered her one hundred thousand

264
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:17,440
Speaker 2: dollars just to make it all go away, and Paula

265
00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:20,520
Speaker 2: Cook said, uh uh, that's not good enough, and she

266
00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 2: had plans, she said, to move forward and sue Fantasa.

267
00:14:24,400 --> 00:14:27,320
Speaker 2: You remembered this story from way back when I did not, Oh, ye.

268
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:29,280
Speaker 1: As well, I first got familiar with this and she was,

269
00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:32,720
Speaker 1: I mean that many years ago. She was again cobviously

270
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:35,480
Speaker 1: she's a superstar, but she was still at the height

271
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:41,120
Speaker 1: of a lot of her post American idol stardom around

272
00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:43,720
Speaker 1: that time, and this was a tough It was a

273
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:46,440
Speaker 1: why do I remember this from It's around the time

274
00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:49,120
Speaker 1: she was doing color purple on stage because I was

275
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:50,880
Speaker 1: working with her and dealing with her at that time,

276
00:14:50,920 --> 00:14:52,680
Speaker 1: and this might have been why I got familiar with it.

277
00:14:52,760 --> 00:14:56,280
Speaker 1: But it's a it was an ugly, ugly hit. It

278
00:14:56,400 --> 00:14:59,280
Speaker 1: may just sounds awful when you hear those details, but

279
00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:02,880
Speaker 1: her story was one the other person couldn't prove a

280
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:05,720
Speaker 1: lot of those details. The criteria that you need to

281
00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:07,480
Speaker 1: prove alienation of affection.

282
00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:09,200
Speaker 2: To your point, it's a tough thing to prove. So

283
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 2: Paula Cook, this was a messy divorce between Paula Cook

284
00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:16,920
Speaker 2: and her then husband, Antwin Cook. So they're in the

285
00:15:16,960 --> 00:15:21,040
Speaker 2: middle of their divorce proceedings and she says, I she

286
00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:23,480
Speaker 2: announced to everyone that she was going to sue Fantasia

287
00:15:23,560 --> 00:15:27,640
Speaker 2: for alienation of affection because she said that Fantasia was

288
00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:31,440
Speaker 2: the reason why her husband was leaving her and going

289
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:34,960
Speaker 2: on with Fantasia. Now, Fantasia had claimed she initially didn't

290
00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:36,880
Speaker 2: even know that he was married. She knew that he

291
00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:39,120
Speaker 2: was married, but she thought they were separated and that

292
00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:41,600
Speaker 2: they were already living a part that she wasn't doing

293
00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 2: anything untoward. And turns out the judge in that divorce

294
00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:50,480
Speaker 2: case ruled that Antoine Cook was in fact separated from

295
00:15:50,560 --> 00:15:53,600
Speaker 2: his wife before he and Fantasia started dating. So the

296
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 2: date in which they began dating and the date in

297
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 2: which this marriage was good or not good played a

298
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:02,080
Speaker 2: huge to the point that it had. You have to

299
00:16:02,120 --> 00:16:05,080
Speaker 2: prove that your marriage was in a good place when

300
00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:06,200
Speaker 2: this happened.

301
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:08,920
Speaker 1: You know another part of this, I'm not sure. I

302
00:16:08,920 --> 00:16:11,160
Speaker 1: don't think we did mention that you also have to

303
00:16:12,560 --> 00:16:16,280
Speaker 1: you have to prove that the person outside your marriage

304
00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:17,560
Speaker 1: was actually aware that.

305
00:16:17,520 --> 00:16:18,640
Speaker 4: You were married.

306
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:21,680
Speaker 1: Right, it's if you didn't know any said he was

307
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:23,960
Speaker 1: single and no, you can't be health appul filmed.

308
00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 3: And that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

309
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:29,040
Speaker 2: So yeah, the court determined, I don't know how you

310
00:16:29,080 --> 00:16:34,160
Speaker 2: figured out that Fantasia's then boyfriend and his wife were

311
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 2: separated in September of the year before versus June of

312
00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:42,240
Speaker 2: twenty ten, which she was claiming. So they were arguing

313
00:16:42,320 --> 00:16:44,760
Speaker 2: at what point they were separated, at what point their

314
00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:48,280
Speaker 2: marriage went sour. It's I'm amazed when you look and

315
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:51,360
Speaker 2: see the week's this week's decision by this jury that

316
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:53,560
Speaker 2: they were able or that she was able to prove

317
00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:55,120
Speaker 2: that her marriage was good.

318
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:57,640
Speaker 3: How do you prove that to a jury.

319
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:01,640
Speaker 4: I wish I wish we'd have got ensued.

320
00:17:02,520 --> 00:17:05,240
Speaker 1: I would love to have gone to court and proven

321
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:07,000
Speaker 1: our case. It's something we never got to do, and

322
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:08,880
Speaker 1: you can't do it in the court of public opinion.

323
00:17:08,920 --> 00:17:12,880
Speaker 1: But these things, look, people have, Look, marriages and break

324
00:17:12,960 --> 00:17:14,960
Speaker 1: up all these things can be messy. And North Carolina

325
00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:16,959
Speaker 1: gives your way to make it even messier if you will,

326
00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:19,560
Speaker 1: at least from a public standpoint. Look, that woman felt

327
00:17:19,560 --> 00:17:21,040
Speaker 1: she was wrong. She has the right to do what

328
00:17:21,119 --> 00:17:23,720
Speaker 1: she did, period point point. That's nothing else to talk

329
00:17:23,720 --> 00:17:25,919
Speaker 1: about it. Should we still have these laws on the books.

330
00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:31,560
Speaker 1: That's to be debated, potentially, but they're there in some places.

331
00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:38,359
Speaker 1: They it's bizarre. They just seem bizarre to think that

332
00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:43,160
Speaker 1: anyone could steal something from you. It's not yours, right,

333
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:46,760
Speaker 1: We're still talking about people and oftentimes women, as property

334
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:47,800
Speaker 1: of some kind.

335
00:17:47,800 --> 00:17:49,600
Speaker 4: It's it's it's bizarre.

336
00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:51,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, And in this case, it was the man who

337
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:55,600
Speaker 2: basically is being regarded as a piece of property. You

338
00:17:55,680 --> 00:17:58,800
Speaker 2: took what was mine I guess I just take issue

339
00:17:58,840 --> 00:18:02,040
Speaker 2: with the whole concept of a relationship that anyone is

340
00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:06,159
Speaker 2: someone else's property, or that your mind or that I'm yours.

341
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 2: We can choose to be together, we can choose to

342
00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:14,160
Speaker 2: make different decisions based on what's best for us, and yes,

343
00:18:14,200 --> 00:18:16,960
Speaker 2: you may have to deal with the messiness of divorce

344
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:19,560
Speaker 2: and pay the price of that. But to actually have

345
00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:22,560
Speaker 2: a judgment against you but not the other person, it

346
00:18:22,600 --> 00:18:25,280
Speaker 2: takes two to tango, like the whole thing, the idea

347
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:28,200
Speaker 2: that and I think this is what's so funny in

348
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:32,360
Speaker 2: the idea of as you mentioned equality, that women could

349
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:35,240
Speaker 2: then use this law for their own purposes. I do

350
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:37,840
Speaker 2: find it a little disturbing because it goes back to

351
00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:42,639
Speaker 2: that old playbook that so many I've always I've always

352
00:18:42,680 --> 00:18:45,320
Speaker 2: been uncomfortable with this concept that somehow a woman's going

353
00:18:45,359 --> 00:18:47,080
Speaker 2: to be upset at the other woman instead of being

354
00:18:47,160 --> 00:18:48,200
Speaker 2: upset at her own husband.

355
00:18:48,280 --> 00:18:49,600
Speaker 3: If that's who made.

356
00:18:49,480 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 2: The value you, that's who went into a contract with you,

357
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:55,960
Speaker 2: a legally binding contract with you. That is the person

358
00:18:56,040 --> 00:18:59,280
Speaker 2: who I feel like you betrayed you in the sense

359
00:18:59,359 --> 00:19:02,399
Speaker 2: that you that's the person who vowed to be with him.

360
00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:06,560
Speaker 1: Does it feel like it takes some responsibility off the spouse. Yes,

361
00:19:06,840 --> 00:19:11,760
Speaker 1: by saying, well, he just couldn't help himself. He was

362
00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:14,879
Speaker 1: just pressured into that. No, really, it seems in this

363
00:19:15,000 --> 00:19:17,760
Speaker 1: case that's the argument that's being made.

364
00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:18,240
Speaker 3: Yeah.

365
00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's fascinating to me that these laws are on

366
00:19:22,080 --> 00:19:23,200
Speaker 2: the books in some states.

367
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:27,520
Speaker 3: It's fascinating to me that a jury actually awarded this

368
00:19:27,600 --> 00:19:29,240
Speaker 3: woman that much money.

369
00:19:29,320 --> 00:19:32,040
Speaker 1: Oh shit, Oh, I didn't forgot to mention. This is

370
00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:34,120
Speaker 1: not even close. There was another one in North Carolina.

371
00:19:34,119 --> 00:19:36,639
Speaker 1: A woman got thirty million. There was a thirty million

372
00:19:36,640 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 1: dollar case. I don't think it was that long ago.

373
00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:40,040
Speaker 1: I believe it was twenty eleven. Forgive me, but I

374
00:19:40,080 --> 00:19:42,280
Speaker 1: don't have that right. But it's not that long ago.

375
00:19:42,440 --> 00:19:46,159
Speaker 1: She was married to a guy who was like a

376
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:50,119
Speaker 1: trucking company tycoon or something. There sue this other woman.

377
00:19:50,480 --> 00:19:53,240
Speaker 1: Sure nough thirty million dollar ward. Also in North Carolina,

378
00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:56,040
Speaker 1: Fletcher Cox, I think it was his name, NFL player.

379
00:19:56,600 --> 00:19:58,439
Speaker 1: This was more recent. I think it was twenty eighteen.

380
00:19:58,760 --> 00:20:01,520
Speaker 1: They settled out of court, but a guy sued him

381
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:04,920
Speaker 1: saying that he was having an affair with the wife,

382
00:20:04,920 --> 00:20:08,280
Speaker 1: and the NFL player got Yeah. In North Carolina. Wow, Yeah,

383
00:20:08,320 --> 00:20:11,040
Speaker 1: thirty million. That is what I forgot about that.

384
00:20:11,160 --> 00:20:12,760
Speaker 2: And you know what, It's funny because when you look

385
00:20:12,760 --> 00:20:15,679
Speaker 2: at the states, when you google where this is still

386
00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:19,720
Speaker 2: a legal course of action in all the states, it

387
00:20:19,800 --> 00:20:24,040
Speaker 2: just says recognizes, recognizes, recognizes this law. North Carolina, it adds,

388
00:20:24,320 --> 00:20:27,600
Speaker 2: recognized this alienation of affection and is one of the states.

389
00:20:27,320 --> 00:20:29,800
Speaker 3: Where it is still frequently litigated.

390
00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:33,400
Speaker 2: So for whatever reason, maybe it's the attorneys in North

391
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:36,080
Speaker 2: Carolina who understand this is an avenue where people can

392
00:20:36,119 --> 00:20:39,680
Speaker 2: seek some sort of financial They can reclaim some sort

393
00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:43,840
Speaker 2: of financial gain because of what happened to them or

394
00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:46,280
Speaker 2: are wrong that they believe was done to them. This

395
00:20:46,359 --> 00:20:48,439
Speaker 2: is an avenue where you can say, hey, yes, I

396
00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:50,720
Speaker 2: can financially get some money. And obviously the lawyers line

397
00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:51,880
Speaker 2: their pockets at the same time.

398
00:20:52,080 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 1: But you call I mean for the people on that side. Well,

399
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,560
Speaker 1: the woman who whoever whatever she might have gone through

400
00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:01,040
Speaker 1: a cure at Montague, Yes, what she went to look

401
00:21:01,680 --> 00:21:04,359
Speaker 1: if she feels she was in a loving relationship, she

402
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 1: feels that her husband in that relationship would still be

403
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:12,200
Speaker 1: good and solid had this other person not entered their lives.

404
00:21:12,280 --> 00:21:16,840
Speaker 1: And I don't know, we think about you said the vow,

405
00:21:16,920 --> 00:21:19,320
Speaker 1: and I guess that's right. I'm trying to find some

406
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:21,520
Speaker 1: way of being on the side of the law in

407
00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:22,240
Speaker 1: North Carolina.

408
00:21:22,359 --> 00:21:22,920
Speaker 4: I'm trying to.

409
00:21:22,840 --> 00:21:25,400
Speaker 1: Find a way to go okay, that there is value

410
00:21:25,440 --> 00:21:28,960
Speaker 1: in doing it this way. I'm struggling with that, but

411
00:21:29,080 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 1: I don't want to take away from what she's been

412
00:21:31,680 --> 00:21:36,000
Speaker 1: she's been through and feels. But if you can understand

413
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:38,840
Speaker 1: and respect and honor how she feels, it doesn't also

414
00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:41,919
Speaker 1: necessarily mean you need to give her two million dollars

415
00:21:41,960 --> 00:21:43,840
Speaker 1: from the person outside of America.

416
00:21:43,880 --> 00:21:46,520
Speaker 2: And I just think I would also just want to

417
00:21:46,960 --> 00:21:49,600
Speaker 2: end with the perspective that there is a reason why

418
00:21:49,640 --> 00:21:53,560
Speaker 2: the majority of states in this nation chose to get.

419
00:21:53,520 --> 00:21:54,400
Speaker 3: Rid of this law.

420
00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:58,000
Speaker 2: For whatever reasons, each individual state had to get rid

421
00:21:58,000 --> 00:22:00,640
Speaker 2: of it. But there are only yes, seven and states

422
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:05,800
Speaker 2: in this country where you can sue for this this

423
00:22:06,160 --> 00:22:09,480
Speaker 2: uh seemingly art well, it's not seemingly archaic law that

424
00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:12,680
Speaker 2: is modern and certainly paying out in.

425
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:17,200
Speaker 3: This specific case in North Carolina. Who knew? At least

426
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:19,920
Speaker 3: I didn't. But with that hope you learned something. Everyone.

427
00:22:19,960 --> 00:22:22,640
Speaker 3: I may be robot alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk

428
00:22:22,680 --> 00:22:23,120
Speaker 3: to you soon.