Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

NOTHING TO ROAR ABOUT

8/16/2012

0 Comments

 
Local auto magnate Bob Rohrman filed an Alienation of Affection lawsuit against a plastic surgeon who was having an affair with his then wife, Rhonda.  Rohrman, known for his signature advertisements, decided to seek an alienation of affections lawsuit against the amorously inclined surgeon in order to recover for expenses he spent while investigating his wife’s actions.

Few Chicago litigation attorneys are aware that Illinois is one of eight states that allows for Alienation of Affection lawsuits.  Alienation of Affections lawsuits are rare and they are difficult to establish because it is comprised of many elements and the defense has many avenues to challenge each element and the overall claim.  However, a plaintiff does not need to establish tawdry details such as proof or extramarital sex to establish a claim.
The elements of an alienation claim are (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.  Often, proof of expenses related to the alienation is necessary for receiving more than nominal damages.

Intent to destroy a marriage is not an element.  A plaintiff need only show that the actions of the defendant were intentional and that they should have reasonably foreseen that these actions would negatively impact the marriage.  Thus, a common defense to alienation of affection suits typically involve a lack of knowledge that the spouse was in fact married or a lack of intent to amorously engage with the spouse at all.  This can involve willful blindness or allegations that the interloper was not an active or aggressive suitor.  It is not a defense that the non-innocent spouse consented to defendant’s conduct. Prior marital problems only work as a defense if the marital issues can be shown to negate any love between the spouses.

Plastic surgeons beware.

For additional details:  The Indy Star 
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder