Thats only 10 g's a year. the asshole got off easy!
R~

Wow!
I imagine there would be a "time" stipulation to keep the one-night standers at bay?
That poor woman--what a fool for letting it go on 20 years!
"Psssstt...he's NEVER going to leave his wife!"
;-)

finally, a law that won't affect me. Even if they bring it here.

Any woman that hasn't figured the guy wouldn't leave his wife after 20 years needs a check up from the neck up. It's not like she was an unwilling partner. The guys wife should sue to get that money back and go shopping.

Scanner, it's 100k less that he'll have to give his wife when she leaves him for this.

Spotted, I never thought of that. There'd have to be some kind of time limit, and from what I've read it's up to the person outside of the marriage to prove there was a relationship at all.

Bob, good to hear :)

Michael, I have little sympathy for the woman involved. My sympathies lie with the wife at having such an asshole of a husband, so I agree. Shopping would be good.

Do they take into account whether he supported her during the relationship?

Now you got me wondering how the judgment was determined. Years + amount of sex + quality of other physical contact, e.g. massages + agreeable conversation - number of unwanted late-night phone calls - price of jewelry and/or other monetary assets already given - number of arguments during which the plaintiff said, "You said you were going to leave her."

We could use that law in this country. ~R~

Caleb, I'm not sure but I'm assuming so.

Stim, imagine having that job?

Chuck, I still can't make up my mind if it's a good thing or not.

Austrialia should adopt a "no fault" rule for wives who murder their husbands after learning they have been sleeping around for 20 years. Give her a ten day window. After that, she's back to standard rules.
Good post.

First it was the guy sodomized by the stripper and now this. Australia seems like a dangerous place to be a dude, at least if you're an asshole.

I just hope the wife of the philanderer gets 100x's that amount for putting up with the asshole! I wonder if anyone thought how this retro-active prostitution pay scheme might effect the guy's family.
What happens to the one night standers? Shouldn't they get at least $8.00?

Nanatehay, you aren't allowed to mention the sodomizing stripper without including a link to my post:

http://open.salon.com/blog/drew-silla/2009/08/05/
stripper_acquitted_of_sodomizing_drunk_fucktard

Pffft.

Call me old fashioned, but what happened to simply paying up front?

Sounds like you need a lawyer to draft up release forms for an affair. Oh well, just more paperwork.

That is crazy. And I take it he was still married when he had to dish out al that money? You guys must not have community property, because after 20 years the wife would most likely own an undivided half of everything. That sucks for her.

In California there is no gay marriage, but if you live with your partner for 10 years and then break up--the one with less money/income is "entitled to a divorce" that includes alimony etc. I knew I had a good reason to be single.

I have a friend who pays alimony to her former girlfriend who started dating another woman while they were together and then eventually left her. She wanted property, a boat and alimony. My friend wanted to know if I knew where we could get our hands on a club and some cement.

You know, in most cases, if they just passed a law that took the word "marriage" out of all laws and replaced it with civil union, i.e. all people gay or straight get a civil union from the government and get married in a church, none of these loop holes would happen.

But that would b easy and why do that?

-e

Andy, with the infidelity rate as high as it is, I doubt that law would pass. I'm surprised this one did, although I think it may have flown way under the radar because the media focused on the overdue but still inadequate rights it affords same sex couples.

Nana, Australia is just a dangerous place altogether :)

Rainee, you've actually hit on the one reason why I think this may be a good idea. The lawsuits will out the unfaithful, and their partners will finally be aware of what's going on...even if it costs them financially.

Nick, or people could just decide not to have one.

Gazoo, I fully support that idea of civil unions for all. Maybe one day.

They are both scumbags. People should not get money for knowingly sleeping with someone that's married. They are almost as sleazy as the adulterer cheating on their spouse.

lets see them collect from the women.

I think she should pay him. Maybe. Would make as much sense Nat..

What a spooky place, Australia is!

Only in Oz!

The Outback is wild! The guy is a real jerk, but I'm not so sure that "the other woman" should be rewarded. I agree with gazoo - it sucks for the wife (squared).

That seems like a law that's just begging to be abused . . .

"or people could just decide not to have on"

Well, Natalie. Yea. And if people just got along, we wouldn't have wars.

Unfortunately, human nature tends to be fairly immutable and people, from generation to generation are going to exhibit the same human tendencies - fear, greed, gluttony, sloth, etc. No?

I would like to believe in moral progress, but have seen no evidence. And Dr. Amy has convinced me it has to be about evidence.

I also take it that men who are loved and left by rich women having affairs on their husbands are also being compensated, right?

So when old cougars get tired of their 20 and 30something male eye candy, the guys get set up with a nice paycheck from their former female lover?

What an odd world we live in. Why anyone - male or female - should have to compensate somebody for breaking off a relationship with them is absolutely ridiculous. If I choose to date a married woman for 20 years and she lies to me and strings me along and then dumps me leaving me with nothing, that's her right.

Relationships are voluntary. If you don't want to be with somebody financial concerns shouldn't be what hold you back. This is kind of disgusting to me on some level. I'll be interested in seeing how this law plays out.

Is this woman capable of holding down a job? Anyway, what kind of woman spends 20 years expecting a married man to "take care of her"? She should be fined for stupidity rather a than awarded money.

Hmmm... I think this law might be good here in the states. Not because I think women should be rewarded for having affairs with married men but because I think it may make married men think twice about having affairs. And sweetie, he is not going to leave his wife! That relaxation? A hooker can do that just as well, he's just too cheap to spring for the hotel room!Yes he does want comittment. He has a wife for that as proof of it. You, Honey, are the one that's afraid of comittment or you'd be out there finding a good man who wants to love you and cherish you for everything you are every day and every night rather than make you wait by the phone and spend holidays alone. That's my two dinars! Thanks for the post! It's interesting to see laws outside of the U.S.! Rated

Very interesting. Just want to mention that in the U.S. an "order to pay" is not synonymous with getting the money.

Wait, 20 years???

~ROTFLMAO~

Sorry, I meant, poor woman, she should have gotten more for believing that asshole after 20 years!! EEK!!

:)

I've never cheated and never considered it. Maybe because of being in bands and touring a big part of my life, I'm not sure. It's always there, being with girls have never been a problem. But it was equally not a problem to be faithful when I was in a relationship.

I just dumped one of my closest friends of 15 years because of him cheating on his wife. We've lived far apart from each other for some time but have still been through a lot of heavy shit during that time, and I've never even met her. But when he told me in a phone call recently, the whole story of what he had done the past year and a half, I wouldn't speak to him again.

If you'll lie to the person who is supposed to the the most important to you in the world, why should I trust you? Why would anyone trust you?

20 years? That's not an affair, that's polygamy!

Seriously, I think moralists actually come out ahead when people cheat. They've accomplished their goal of turning what should be the most pleasurable thing, a sexual relationship, into a source of pain for the cheated-on spouse and ultimately for the spouse who did the cheating. It also gives them something to rant about at their megachurches.

Part of the point of marriage is to clarify what kind of relationship you have: the kind where the guy's made a commitment to your future or the kind where he hasn't.

Since many women might decide to get a divorce on hearing their husband has been screwing around for years, where does the wife stand in line for the guy's assets? Second because she sued for alimony second?

There are laws about common-law marriages, but those make it clear that the couple has to act like a married couple (ie live together), because the facts are pretty clear when they don't: the party on the side is a party on the side, not a main squeeze.

I don't see why the law should support the claims of someone who has deluded themselves.

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? IF I GO THERE WOULD BE TROUBLE, BUT IF I STAY IT WILL BE DOUBLE. SO COME ON AND LET ME KNOW. SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? NOW OR LATER?

Hmmm, interesting development. Like others, I wonder about how this punishes the long suffering wife, and what about his children. Who are the preferred creditors in this where funds are limited?

Any woman who is willing to hang around playing second fiddle for that long, ... well, there shouldn't be a financial reward for gullibility. That's my opinion.

20 years, and now just getting caught? Wow!
And that money leaves the wife's grasp to go to the lover? Hummm...

Kick ass post, Natalie. Controversial. I am still laughing about the comment above from Raineee something about "shouldn't one night stands get at least $8.00?" Hilarious.

I think she's just as guilty as he is. Maybe the wife can sue them both. That would be fun.

Quote:
" Not because I think women should be rewarded for having affairs with married men but because I think it may make married men think twice about having affairs."

This logic burns me up. So you want to impose your morality on everybody?

This is the SAME logic the religious right uses to say:
"If abortion were illegal, women would think twice about having premarital sex."

Well, you know, maybe they would. That still doesn't mean that we have any business legislating the morality of what happens between consensual adults in the bedroom. Adultery shouldn't even be a crime - most people cheat at some point in their lives, studies have shown that a LOT of kids out there have DNA that don't match that of the supposed "father" - I mean, come on people.

Why "punish" people for having affairs? Why not punish the woman who knew she was sleeping with a married man for 20 years? This is thinly-veiled feminist hatred of men.

I know you're in Australia, but Americans should be warned that cohabiting with a member of the opposite sex FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME (it's not specified in the law) constitutes the establishment of a common law marriage in 49 states. (The exception, of course, is Texas, where you have two years to declare the relationship.) So, in fact, a married man who is also cohabiting with another woman is guilty, among other things, of polygamy...and, once established, a common law marriage requires a legal divorce for dissolution. I have posted this elsewhere on OS at greater length, but I forgot where I put it.

The point is that in the US this situation technically already exists.

Um, I'm not sure where you went to law school sagemerlin, but get your money back.

Only 11 states in the United States recognize common law marriage, and only 5 other states recognize certain kinds of common law marriage, different requirements can exist for any type depending on the state, there are time specifications in all cases, and statutory limits apply in some. In Michigan, by law there is no common law marriage, and NO amount of time of cohabitation will result in marriage.

The assertion that cohabitation for ANY length of time constitutes a common law marriage and thus entitles the parties to the legal rights afforded a formal married couple is ludicrous. Roughly 5 million people in the United States cohabitate. If your assertion were correct, I could have demanded half of the proceeds of my ex-girlfriends house when she sold it. We lived together for two years, and I lived in her house for 7 years after she moved out. If you were right, I think I'd have a Hell of a case.

Under your perceived rule of law: If a woman was to let her boyfriend live at her house, that she owned, for a week while he was moving into a new apartment, he would be entitled to half of her assets. Likewise, if he stayed with her for two days while his place was fumigated, she would be entitled to half his assets.

What you asserted is idiocy, and has absolutely no basis in fact other than, yes, common law does exist.