November 15, 2025 • 22 mins
North Carolina is one of 7 states that has an Alienation of Affection Law, which allows a spouse to sue a third party when they can prove they had a loving marriage until that third party maliciously seduced their spouse. The wronged party doesn’t even have to prove there was an extramarital sexual affair… it is solely about someone stealing a partner’s affection, that leads to the destruction of a marriage. Amy and T.J. go over the fascinating facts of this case and bring up one of the most famous examples of someone attempting to use the law against an American Idol alum.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, November the fifteenth, and
this week huge headline that a woman was ordered to
pay one point seven five million dollars and who does
she have to pay it to? The woman whose husband
she allegedly stole with that, Welcome to this episode of
(00:24):
Amy and TJ ropes. This is making more headlines, yes,
because of that, but also a TikTok influencer, I guess
a pretty influential one is involved in this story. But
the story was everywhere this week.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh yeah, this was crazy TikTok influencer Brene Canard, and
she has almost three million followers. So yes, she is consequential,
certainly given just her reach. But she is now married
to Tim Montague. The problem was he used to be
(00:54):
married to a Kira Montague and Kira says that Brene
stole her husband and a jury agreed and awarded that
astronomical amount of money as an award settlement.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Well, folks are scratching their head. You're hearing it right. Yes,
a woman whose husband ended up in a relationship with
another woman sued the quote unquote mistress and she won.
Now a lot of people here then go, what the
hell was going on a lot of people here, then
go wait, this sounds familiar. These laws have been around
for a long time, but not in a lot of places,
(01:31):
and North Carolina still has it on the books, Brot.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Honestly it is.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I did some deep diving on this one because I
hadn't heard of this. You mentioned a famous case which
we will get into, where it came to your attention,
alienation of affection that is on the books in North
Carolina and six other states. So there are seven states
in this country that still continue that. I but since
(01:58):
you said, yeahwa, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota,
and Utah. And the interesting thing is when I go, yeah,
when I started googling it, basically this used to be
common practice, but every other state has abolished, like took
(02:20):
the extra step of banning or abolishing this law, taking
it off of basically their books.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
In each other state.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
It was rooted in this notion that mostly it was
women who were considered property of women. So if another
man came and stole your wife, he stole your property,
so to speak. So there was a way to basically
have some way to make someone pay for stealing your property.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
That was what it was rooted.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Yeah, well you're talking about rooted in ancient times. As
it goes back to ancient times in certain parts of Europe,
I believe it was where you could actually kill. You
were allowed to kill the man who slept with your wife.
Now it evolved over time to become something where you
could be compensated, because as we know, it's not necessarily
always the case here. Now it's supposed to be love
and romance, and you do it because you're sparing your soulmate.
(03:10):
But these are business transactions in a lot of ways
and have been historically. So, yeah, your property is lost,
you're losing something. You need to compensate me for it
so I can go now purchase a new wife. That
is what we're talking about. That stuff made its way
to the United States in different forms, but this country
for a long time, just about everybody had one on
the book career, every state.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
And just for the mere fact that forty three states
have taken this off of their books says a lot
about what this law is.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I was surprised.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I mean, this is obviously, like you said, an ancient law,
so to speak. It's antiquated at the very least. So
it's fascinating and frankly a little shocking to see it
actually play out and have someone oh one woman, oh
another woman almost two million dollars right now.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
We're saying it this way, but it can be a
man owing another man. This can go both ways. And
that was a part of what they thought was equality,
if you will, Robes, because he came about that's saying, hey,
if it's good for this side, it's good for that side.
So yes, the woman can sue, the man can sue.
So this was supposed to be it was supposed to
be something well, this was supposed to be progressive, if
(04:22):
you will, back in the day that women could also.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Oh the irony. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So basically, this law allows a spouse to file a
lawsuit against a third party if they believe that person
caused the other spouse to end their marriage. My problem
with this is literally, there is no culpability for the
person who was in the marriage who broke the contract
of marriage. Isn't that what divorce settlements are all about.
(04:50):
Isn't that what those remedies allow for. So it's interesting
to me that in this specific case, the husband who's
was just as much a part of all of this
literally gets out of this without any sort of scolding
or financial responsibility. I mean, I know he's married to
her now, so I guess they're going to share that
(05:11):
financial burden.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
But it's still like, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to me.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Well, you cannot, and the law does not allow for
the spouse to soothe the spouse, So the spouse can't.
You're getting divorced from someone, So we're gonna do with
all of our back and forth and how we're splitting
up finances, and I all that back and forth is there.
You can't then tell your spouse, well, you cheated on me,
so now I can sue you elsewhere that's not allowed.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
So the spouse who was cheated on.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Your only option for going after somebody is the person
you think alienated the affection of your spouse. And it's
very specific. It's fairly hard to prove. It comes up
more often than you would think, but you have to
meet certain criteria and one of those number one roads.
And I don't know how hard this is for most people,
to prove that you had a solid, committed, loving, real
(06:04):
marriage to begin with.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yes, that had to be the case, and this other
person literally, through malicious intent, seduced your partner into leaving
the marriage.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And that is a part of it.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
And so when you start reading the details of what
allegedly happened in this case, you could see they clearly
laid this out. I do want to point out it
was a little gross in researching this and googling it,
seeing attorneys and law firms, and I get this is
the business they are in.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
But they said, you know, considering.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
A divorce or in the middle of a divorce, did
you know about this law, and almost incentivizing financially incentivizing
people who were in the middle of a divorce to
see if this law applied to their situation and whether
or not they could sue, Like encouraging people to be
litigious if there was some sort of extramarital affair.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
What do we call it on the street. You call
them ambulance chasers. Yes, okay, this is just in different form.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
That's all. They don't.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Yeah, they're recruiting their advertising saying yes, yes, yes, this
is possible. And again how difficult that is to prove
because you had a loving marriage and then this person.
This isn't just about cheating, it's not.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
You don't even have to have had sex, and yep.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
So this is not a about sex, is not it.
You have to prove that your marriage diminished from the
loving thing that it was to something else and it
was directly this other person's.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Fault, and it was of malicious intent.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Right. So, in this particular case, Akira Montague's husband, Tim Montague,
was Brenee Canard's manager, and Brenee, of course, is the
TikTok influencer who has nearly three million followers. Akira accused
Brene of engaging quote in behavior designed to seduce her husband,
and she listed what she claims Brenee did, including wearing
(07:53):
short skirts, bending over in front of her husband with
said short skirt on or belief flirting with him and
this is actually specifically referenced, flicking her tongue to expose
her tongue rings in a flirtatious manner.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Okay, I mean those are specific things. Someone flirted with
someone who was not available, and that is wrong. And
it's amazing to hear those things listed as evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
That exactly, and that was the evidence that was in
addition to the fact that she said Canard used the
personal information she gained from their friendship to seduce her husband,
and she said that Canard and her husband exchanged numerous
sexual videos and text messages and met in the Montague's
(08:42):
marital home making these videos.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
In fact, I believe she found one of the videos,
and that is.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
How she knew or first realized that her husband was
no longer interested as much in her. In fact, she
said that her husband began to withdraw emotionally from her
as a direct result of Yard's seduction, and then she
also went on to say that he began concealing his
financial matters and expenses. I'm quoting this, including hiding the
(09:08):
many outings, dates, transactions, and payments involving Canard.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
You're proving a relationship, but you still have to approve.
You have to connect these dots, and apparently she was
able to do it, or at least able to do
it enough that a.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
This is a jury.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yes, it was a jury of her peers.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Able to prove this enough? How you do that in court?
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I would be fascinated to watch one of these, but
to prove that the marriage suffered the emotion you lost
emotionally and it was directly this person's fault. Again, you
spoke about the sex thing that can happen, and two
people never engaged in an affair, never engaged in a
physical a sexual affair, you could still be sued for
alienation of affection.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I have to tell you this is the first I
have ever heard of this, and you mentioned there is
another famous case.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
But here's what.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Canard was actually found liad before engaging in criminal conver
sation with Tim Montague, an alienation of affection during his marriage.
That is, that was the allegation, and that is what
she found. Was found liable.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
For criminal conversation. I don't know why they call it that.
It's a bizarre term to use, if you will, but
what we're talking about sex, that's what they call it.
They had criminal conversation. It's not sex. It's just sex,
that's all it means.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
But it was an interesting way to put it there.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Oooh yes, And so she actually the penalty for criminal
conversation was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then
she got another one point five million in damages for
the actual alienation of affection.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Who that was an expensive well, second marriage, I guess
for that.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
But what is Canard? She?
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Of course she had a response to this. I thought
the response was bizarre. I didn't exactly understand it. But
also we didn't get too much into this. She was,
she was out there. She wasn't hiding that she was
involved with this guy. That was the part I didn't
quite piece together that.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Well, well, she did not.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
It took her a while to admit that this was
going on, that she was even in a relationship with
him before she was confronted. And then I will say
the two of them actually got married pretty quickly after
their divorce was final because she she had been further
complicating this, Canard had been married to Montague's cousin, so
(11:28):
there was a lot of legs to.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
All of this.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Specifically, and certainly she had to pay the price, and
she's claiming she'll never pay it. She said she'll never
get paid. That was part of her response. Good luck
getting this money from me.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
That means you appeal and I don't know how this
eventually goes.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (11:50):
This is what happens. And the reason I know this
is because I was recently watching an OJ Simpson documentary
to where they the family of Ron Goldwin were awarded
all this money, they said, yet we're awarded it, but
there's no follow up from the court to make sure
it comes to us.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I just heard this.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
There's nothing necessarily holding anybody responsible for paying that money.
So maybe that's it, and that.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Just came in.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, you look at like even go to an extreme
case of OJ Simpson being found, like you said, libel
in the civil case, the family members of Nicole Brown
and Ron Goldman had never got a penny ever, like,
not one cent from OJ Simpson because even though he
was told he owed them X amount of dollars, he
(12:36):
just found ways of making money in other ways, through property,
through whatever, so he never ended up having to actually
make that payment to them. And that's certainly what it
seems like, maybe the case right now with Cannard for sure.
So we mentioned that there was another famous case. Do
you all remember American idol Alum and certainly a singing
(12:58):
phenom phantas just goes by Fantasia, She was involved in
a very similar or the threat of a very similar
lawsuit in the exact same state of North Carolina. When
we come back, we'll tell you all about that and
(13:22):
welcome back and continuing our conversation on this alienation of
affection law that is on the books in seven states,
including the state of North Carolina. And we have obviously
this recent case with a TikTok star and her now
husband being the ex wife of her now husband, being
(13:43):
awarded one point seventy five million dollars because the jury
believed that this TikTok influencer, Brene Canard seduced her husband,
literally stole her husband from her, and so she was
awarded one point seven five million dollars. Back in twenty ten,
Fantasia of American idol fame was threatened to be sued
(14:07):
by her then boyfriend's wife soon to be ex wife,
Paula Cook, and reportedly Fantasia offered her one hundred thousand
dollars just to make it all go away, and Paula
Cook said, uh uh, that's not good enough, and she
had plans, she said, to move forward and sue Fantasa.
You remembered this story from way back when I did not, Oh, ye.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
As well, I first got familiar with this and she was,
I mean that many years ago. She was again cobviously
she's a superstar, but she was still at the height
of a lot of her post American idol stardom around
that time, and this was a tough It was a
why do I remember this from It's around the time
she was doing color purple on stage because I was
(14:49):
working with her and dealing with her at that time,
and this might have been why I got familiar with it.
But it's a it was an ugly, ugly hit. It
may just sounds awful when you hear those details, but
her story was one the other person couldn't prove a
lot of those details. The criteria that you need to
prove alienation of affection.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
To your point, it's a tough thing to prove. So
Paula Cook, this was a messy divorce between Paula Cook
and her then husband, Antwin Cook. So they're in the
middle of their divorce proceedings and she says, I she
announced to everyone that she was going to sue Fantasia
for alienation of affection because she said that Fantasia was
(15:27):
the reason why her husband was leaving her and going
on with Fantasia. Now, Fantasia had claimed she initially didn't
even know that he was married. She knew that he
was married, but she thought they were separated and that
they were already living a part that she wasn't doing
anything untoward. And turns out the judge in that divorce
case ruled that Antoine Cook was in fact separated from
(15:50):
his wife before he and Fantasia started dating. So the
date in which they began dating and the date in
which this marriage was good or not good played a
huge to the point that it had. You have to
prove that your marriage was in a good place when
this happened.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
You know another part of this, I'm not sure. I
don't think we did mention that you also have to
you have to prove that the person outside your marriage
was actually aware that.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
You were married.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Right, it's if you didn't know any said he was
single and no, you can't be health appul filmed.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
So yeah, the court determined, I don't know how you
figured out that Fantasia's then boyfriend and his wife were
separated in September of the year before versus June of
twenty ten, which she was claiming. So they were arguing
at what point they were separated, at what point their
marriage went sour. It's I'm amazed when you look and
(16:48):
see the week's this week's decision by this jury that
they were able or that she was able to prove
that her marriage was good.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
How do you prove that to a jury.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
I wish I wish we'd have got ensued.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I would love to have gone to court and proven
our case. It's something we never got to do, and
you can't do it in the court of public opinion.
But these things, look, people have, Look, marriages and break
up all these things can be messy. And North Carolina
gives your way to make it even messier if you will,
at least from a public standpoint. Look, that woman felt
she was wrong. She has the right to do what
she did, period point point. That's nothing else to talk
(17:23):
about it. Should we still have these laws on the books.
That's to be debated, potentially, but they're there in some places.
They it's bizarre. They just seem bizarre to think that
anyone could steal something from you. It's not yours, right,
We're still talking about people and oftentimes women, as property
(17:47):
of some kind.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
It's it's it's bizarre.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yeah, And in this case, it was the man who
basically is being regarded as a piece of property. You
took what was mine I guess I just take issue
with the whole concept of a relationship that anyone is
someone else's property, or that your mind or that I'm yours.
We can choose to be together, we can choose to
make different decisions based on what's best for us, and yes,
(18:14):
you may have to deal with the messiness of divorce
and pay the price of that. But to actually have
a judgment against you but not the other person, it
takes two to tango, like the whole thing, the idea
that and I think this is what's so funny in
the idea of as you mentioned equality, that women could
then use this law for their own purposes. I do
(18:35):
find it a little disturbing because it goes back to
that old playbook that so many I've always I've always
been uncomfortable with this concept that somehow a woman's going
to be upset at the other woman instead of being
upset at her own husband.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
If that's who made.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
The value you, that's who went into a contract with you,
a legally binding contract with you. That is the person
who I feel like you betrayed you in the sense
that you that's the person who vowed to be with him.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Does it feel like it takes some responsibility off the spouse. Yes,
by saying, well, he just couldn't help himself. He was
just pressured into that. No, really, it seems in this
case that's the argument that's being made.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Yeah, it's fascinating to me that these laws are on
the books in some states.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
It's fascinating to me that a jury actually awarded this
woman that much money.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Oh shit, Oh, I didn't forgot to mention. This is
not even close. There was another one in North Carolina.
A woman got thirty million. There was a thirty million
dollar case. I don't think it was that long ago.
I believe it was twenty eleven. Forgive me, but I
don't have that right. But it's not that long ago.
She was married to a guy who was like a
trucking company tycoon or something. There sue this other woman.
(19:50):
Sure nough thirty million dollar ward. Also in North Carolina,
Fletcher Cox, I think it was his name, NFL player.
This was more recent. I think it was twenty eighteen.
They settled out of court, but a guy sued him
saying that he was having an affair with the wife,
and the NFL player got Yeah. In North Carolina. Wow, Yeah,
thirty million. That is what I forgot about that.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
And you know what, It's funny because when you look
at the states, when you google where this is still
a legal course of action in all the states, it
just says recognizes, recognizes, recognizes this law. North Carolina, it adds,
recognized this alienation of affection and is one of the states.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Where it is still frequently litigated.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
So for whatever reason, maybe it's the attorneys in North
Carolina who understand this is an avenue where people can
seek some sort of financial They can reclaim some sort
of financial gain because of what happened to them or
are wrong that they believe was done to them. This
is an avenue where you can say, hey, yes, I
can financially get some money. And obviously the lawyers line
(20:50):
their pockets at the same time.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
But you call I mean for the people on that side. Well,
the woman who whoever whatever she might have gone through
a cure at Montague, Yes, what she went to look
if she feels she was in a loving relationship, she
feels that her husband in that relationship would still be
good and solid had this other person not entered their lives.
(21:12):
And I don't know, we think about you said the vow,
and I guess that's right. I'm trying to find some
way of being on the side of the law in
North Carolina.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
I'm trying to.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Find a way to go okay, that there is value
in doing it this way. I'm struggling with that, but
I don't want to take away from what she's been
she's been through and feels. But if you can understand
and respect and honor how she feels, it doesn't also
necessarily mean you need to give her two million dollars
from the person outside of America.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
And I just think I would also just want to
end with the perspective that there is a reason why
the majority of states in this nation chose to get.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Rid of this law.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
For whatever reasons, each individual state had to get rid
of it. But there are only yes, seven and states
in this country where you can sue for this this
uh seemingly art well, it's not seemingly archaic law that
is modern and certainly paying out in.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
This specific case in North Carolina. Who knew? At least
I didn't. But with that hope you learned something. Everyone.
I may be robot alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk
to you soon.
Hey, the folks, it is Saturday, November the fifteenth, and
this week huge headline that a woman was ordered to
pay one point seven five million dollars and who does
she have to pay it to? The woman whose husband
she allegedly stole with that, Welcome to this episode of
(00:24):
Amy and TJ ropes. This is making more headlines, yes,
because of that, but also a TikTok influencer, I guess
a pretty influential one is involved in this story. But
the story was everywhere this week.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh yeah, this was crazy TikTok influencer Brene Canard, and
she has almost three million followers. So yes, she is consequential,
certainly given just her reach. But she is now married
to Tim Montague. The problem was he used to be
(00:54):
married to a Kira Montague and Kira says that Brene
stole her husband and a jury agreed and awarded that
astronomical amount of money as an award settlement.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Well, folks are scratching their head. You're hearing it right. Yes,
a woman whose husband ended up in a relationship with
another woman sued the quote unquote mistress and she won.
Now a lot of people here then go, what the
hell was going on a lot of people here, then
go wait, this sounds familiar. These laws have been around
for a long time, but not in a lot of places,
(01:31):
and North Carolina still has it on the books, Brot.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Honestly it is.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I did some deep diving on this one because I
hadn't heard of this. You mentioned a famous case which
we will get into, where it came to your attention,
alienation of affection that is on the books in North
Carolina and six other states. So there are seven states
in this country that still continue that. I but since
(01:58):
you said, yeahwa, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota,
and Utah. And the interesting thing is when I go, yeah,
when I started googling it, basically this used to be
common practice, but every other state has abolished, like took
(02:20):
the extra step of banning or abolishing this law, taking
it off of basically their books.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
In each other state.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
It was rooted in this notion that mostly it was
women who were considered property of women. So if another
man came and stole your wife, he stole your property,
so to speak. So there was a way to basically
have some way to make someone pay for stealing your property.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
That was what it was rooted.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Yeah, well you're talking about rooted in ancient times. As
it goes back to ancient times in certain parts of Europe,
I believe it was where you could actually kill. You
were allowed to kill the man who slept with your wife.
Now it evolved over time to become something where you
could be compensated, because as we know, it's not necessarily
always the case here. Now it's supposed to be love
and romance, and you do it because you're sparing your soulmate.
(03:10):
But these are business transactions in a lot of ways
and have been historically. So, yeah, your property is lost,
you're losing something. You need to compensate me for it
so I can go now purchase a new wife. That
is what we're talking about. That stuff made its way
to the United States in different forms, but this country
for a long time, just about everybody had one on
the book career, every state.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
And just for the mere fact that forty three states
have taken this off of their books says a lot
about what this law is.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I was surprised.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I mean, this is obviously, like you said, an ancient law,
so to speak. It's antiquated at the very least. So
it's fascinating and frankly a little shocking to see it
actually play out and have someone oh one woman, oh
another woman almost two million dollars right now.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
We're saying it this way, but it can be a
man owing another man. This can go both ways. And
that was a part of what they thought was equality,
if you will, Robes, because he came about that's saying, hey,
if it's good for this side, it's good for that side.
So yes, the woman can sue, the man can sue.
So this was supposed to be it was supposed to
be something well, this was supposed to be progressive, if
(04:22):
you will, back in the day that women could also.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Oh the irony. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So basically, this law allows a spouse to file a
lawsuit against a third party if they believe that person
caused the other spouse to end their marriage. My problem
with this is literally, there is no culpability for the
person who was in the marriage who broke the contract
of marriage. Isn't that what divorce settlements are all about.
(04:50):
Isn't that what those remedies allow for. So it's interesting
to me that in this specific case, the husband who's
was just as much a part of all of this
literally gets out of this without any sort of scolding
or financial responsibility. I mean, I know he's married to
her now, so I guess they're going to share that
(05:11):
financial burden.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
But it's still like, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to me.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Well, you cannot, and the law does not allow for
the spouse to soothe the spouse, So the spouse can't.
You're getting divorced from someone, So we're gonna do with
all of our back and forth and how we're splitting
up finances, and I all that back and forth is there.
You can't then tell your spouse, well, you cheated on me,
so now I can sue you elsewhere that's not allowed.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
So the spouse who was cheated on.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Your only option for going after somebody is the person
you think alienated the affection of your spouse. And it's
very specific. It's fairly hard to prove. It comes up
more often than you would think, but you have to
meet certain criteria and one of those number one roads.
And I don't know how hard this is for most people,
to prove that you had a solid, committed, loving, real
(06:04):
marriage to begin with.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yes, that had to be the case, and this other
person literally, through malicious intent, seduced your partner into leaving
the marriage.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And that is a part of it.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
And so when you start reading the details of what
allegedly happened in this case, you could see they clearly
laid this out. I do want to point out it
was a little gross in researching this and googling it,
seeing attorneys and law firms, and I get this is
the business they are in.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
But they said, you know, considering.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
A divorce or in the middle of a divorce, did
you know about this law, and almost incentivizing financially incentivizing
people who were in the middle of a divorce to
see if this law applied to their situation and whether
or not they could sue, Like encouraging people to be
litigious if there was some sort of extramarital affair.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
What do we call it on the street. You call
them ambulance chasers. Yes, okay, this is just in different form.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
That's all. They don't.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Yeah, they're recruiting their advertising saying yes, yes, yes, this
is possible. And again how difficult that is to prove
because you had a loving marriage and then this person.
This isn't just about cheating, it's not.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
You don't even have to have had sex, and yep.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
So this is not a about sex, is not it.
You have to prove that your marriage diminished from the
loving thing that it was to something else and it
was directly this other person's.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Fault, and it was of malicious intent.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Right. So, in this particular case, Akira Montague's husband, Tim Montague,
was Brenee Canard's manager, and Brenee, of course, is the
TikTok influencer who has nearly three million followers. Akira accused
Brene of engaging quote in behavior designed to seduce her husband,
and she listed what she claims Brenee did, including wearing
(07:53):
short skirts, bending over in front of her husband with
said short skirt on or belief flirting with him and
this is actually specifically referenced, flicking her tongue to expose
her tongue rings in a flirtatious manner.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Okay, I mean those are specific things. Someone flirted with
someone who was not available, and that is wrong. And
it's amazing to hear those things listed as evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
That exactly, and that was the evidence that was in
addition to the fact that she said Canard used the
personal information she gained from their friendship to seduce her husband,
and she said that Canard and her husband exchanged numerous
sexual videos and text messages and met in the Montague's
(08:42):
marital home making these videos.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
In fact, I believe she found one of the videos,
and that is.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
How she knew or first realized that her husband was
no longer interested as much in her. In fact, she
said that her husband began to withdraw emotionally from her
as a direct result of Yard's seduction, and then she
also went on to say that he began concealing his
financial matters and expenses. I'm quoting this, including hiding the
(09:08):
many outings, dates, transactions, and payments involving Canard.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
You're proving a relationship, but you still have to approve.
You have to connect these dots, and apparently she was
able to do it, or at least able to do
it enough that a.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
This is a jury.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yes, it was a jury of her peers.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Able to prove this enough? How you do that in court?
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I would be fascinated to watch one of these, but
to prove that the marriage suffered the emotion you lost
emotionally and it was directly this person's fault. Again, you
spoke about the sex thing that can happen, and two
people never engaged in an affair, never engaged in a
physical a sexual affair, you could still be sued for
alienation of affection.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I have to tell you this is the first I
have ever heard of this, and you mentioned there is
another famous case.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
But here's what.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Canard was actually found liad before engaging in criminal conver
sation with Tim Montague, an alienation of affection during his marriage.
That is, that was the allegation, and that is what
she found. Was found liable.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
For criminal conversation. I don't know why they call it that.
It's a bizarre term to use, if you will, but
what we're talking about sex, that's what they call it.
They had criminal conversation. It's not sex. It's just sex,
that's all it means.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
But it was an interesting way to put it there.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Oooh yes, And so she actually the penalty for criminal
conversation was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then
she got another one point five million in damages for
the actual alienation of affection.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Who that was an expensive well, second marriage, I guess
for that.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
But what is Canard? She?
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Of course she had a response to this. I thought
the response was bizarre. I didn't exactly understand it. But
also we didn't get too much into this. She was,
she was out there. She wasn't hiding that she was
involved with this guy. That was the part I didn't
quite piece together that.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Well, well, she did not.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
It took her a while to admit that this was
going on, that she was even in a relationship with
him before she was confronted. And then I will say
the two of them actually got married pretty quickly after
their divorce was final because she she had been further
complicating this, Canard had been married to Montague's cousin, so
(11:28):
there was a lot of legs to.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
All of this.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Specifically, and certainly she had to pay the price, and
she's claiming she'll never pay it. She said she'll never
get paid. That was part of her response. Good luck
getting this money from me.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
That means you appeal and I don't know how this
eventually goes.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (11:50):
This is what happens. And the reason I know this
is because I was recently watching an OJ Simpson documentary
to where they the family of Ron Goldwin were awarded
all this money, they said, yet we're awarded it, but
there's no follow up from the court to make sure
it comes to us.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I just heard this.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
There's nothing necessarily holding anybody responsible for paying that money.
So maybe that's it, and that.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Just came in.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, you look at like even go to an extreme
case of OJ Simpson being found, like you said, libel
in the civil case, the family members of Nicole Brown
and Ron Goldman had never got a penny ever, like,
not one cent from OJ Simpson because even though he
was told he owed them X amount of dollars, he
(12:36):
just found ways of making money in other ways, through property,
through whatever, so he never ended up having to actually
make that payment to them. And that's certainly what it
seems like, maybe the case right now with Cannard for sure.
So we mentioned that there was another famous case. Do
you all remember American idol Alum and certainly a singing
(12:58):
phenom phantas just goes by Fantasia, She was involved in
a very similar or the threat of a very similar
lawsuit in the exact same state of North Carolina. When
we come back, we'll tell you all about that and
(13:22):
welcome back and continuing our conversation on this alienation of
affection law that is on the books in seven states,
including the state of North Carolina. And we have obviously
this recent case with a TikTok star and her now
husband being the ex wife of her now husband, being
(13:43):
awarded one point seventy five million dollars because the jury
believed that this TikTok influencer, Brene Canard seduced her husband,
literally stole her husband from her, and so she was
awarded one point seven five million dollars. Back in twenty ten,
Fantasia of American idol fame was threatened to be sued
(14:07):
by her then boyfriend's wife soon to be ex wife,
Paula Cook, and reportedly Fantasia offered her one hundred thousand
dollars just to make it all go away, and Paula
Cook said, uh uh, that's not good enough, and she
had plans, she said, to move forward and sue Fantasa.
You remembered this story from way back when I did not, Oh, ye.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
As well, I first got familiar with this and she was,
I mean that many years ago. She was again cobviously
she's a superstar, but she was still at the height
of a lot of her post American idol stardom around
that time, and this was a tough It was a
why do I remember this from It's around the time
she was doing color purple on stage because I was
(14:49):
working with her and dealing with her at that time,
and this might have been why I got familiar with it.
But it's a it was an ugly, ugly hit. It
may just sounds awful when you hear those details, but
her story was one the other person couldn't prove a
lot of those details. The criteria that you need to
prove alienation of affection.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
To your point, it's a tough thing to prove. So
Paula Cook, this was a messy divorce between Paula Cook
and her then husband, Antwin Cook. So they're in the
middle of their divorce proceedings and she says, I she
announced to everyone that she was going to sue Fantasia
for alienation of affection because she said that Fantasia was
(15:27):
the reason why her husband was leaving her and going
on with Fantasia. Now, Fantasia had claimed she initially didn't
even know that he was married. She knew that he
was married, but she thought they were separated and that
they were already living a part that she wasn't doing
anything untoward. And turns out the judge in that divorce
case ruled that Antoine Cook was in fact separated from
(15:50):
his wife before he and Fantasia started dating. So the
date in which they began dating and the date in
which this marriage was good or not good played a
huge to the point that it had. You have to
prove that your marriage was in a good place when
this happened.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
You know another part of this, I'm not sure. I
don't think we did mention that you also have to
you have to prove that the person outside your marriage
was actually aware that.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
You were married.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Right, it's if you didn't know any said he was
single and no, you can't be health appul filmed.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
So yeah, the court determined, I don't know how you
figured out that Fantasia's then boyfriend and his wife were
separated in September of the year before versus June of
twenty ten, which she was claiming. So they were arguing
at what point they were separated, at what point their
marriage went sour. It's I'm amazed when you look and
(16:48):
see the week's this week's decision by this jury that
they were able or that she was able to prove
that her marriage was good.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
How do you prove that to a jury.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
I wish I wish we'd have got ensued.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I would love to have gone to court and proven
our case. It's something we never got to do, and
you can't do it in the court of public opinion.
But these things, look, people have, Look, marriages and break
up all these things can be messy. And North Carolina
gives your way to make it even messier if you will,
at least from a public standpoint. Look, that woman felt
she was wrong. She has the right to do what
she did, period point point. That's nothing else to talk
(17:23):
about it. Should we still have these laws on the books.
That's to be debated, potentially, but they're there in some places.
They it's bizarre. They just seem bizarre to think that
anyone could steal something from you. It's not yours, right,
We're still talking about people and oftentimes women, as property
(17:47):
of some kind.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
It's it's it's bizarre.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yeah, And in this case, it was the man who
basically is being regarded as a piece of property. You
took what was mine I guess I just take issue
with the whole concept of a relationship that anyone is
someone else's property, or that your mind or that I'm yours.
We can choose to be together, we can choose to
make different decisions based on what's best for us, and yes,
(18:14):
you may have to deal with the messiness of divorce
and pay the price of that. But to actually have
a judgment against you but not the other person, it
takes two to tango, like the whole thing, the idea
that and I think this is what's so funny in
the idea of as you mentioned equality, that women could
then use this law for their own purposes. I do
(18:35):
find it a little disturbing because it goes back to
that old playbook that so many I've always I've always
been uncomfortable with this concept that somehow a woman's going
to be upset at the other woman instead of being
upset at her own husband.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
If that's who made.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
The value you, that's who went into a contract with you,
a legally binding contract with you. That is the person
who I feel like you betrayed you in the sense
that you that's the person who vowed to be with him.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Does it feel like it takes some responsibility off the spouse. Yes,
by saying, well, he just couldn't help himself. He was
just pressured into that. No, really, it seems in this
case that's the argument that's being made.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Yeah, it's fascinating to me that these laws are on
the books in some states.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
It's fascinating to me that a jury actually awarded this
woman that much money.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Oh shit, Oh, I didn't forgot to mention. This is
not even close. There was another one in North Carolina.
A woman got thirty million. There was a thirty million
dollar case. I don't think it was that long ago.
I believe it was twenty eleven. Forgive me, but I
don't have that right. But it's not that long ago.
She was married to a guy who was like a
trucking company tycoon or something. There sue this other woman.
(19:50):
Sure nough thirty million dollar ward. Also in North Carolina,
Fletcher Cox, I think it was his name, NFL player.
This was more recent. I think it was twenty eighteen.
They settled out of court, but a guy sued him
saying that he was having an affair with the wife,
and the NFL player got Yeah. In North Carolina. Wow, Yeah,
thirty million. That is what I forgot about that.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
And you know what, It's funny because when you look
at the states, when you google where this is still
a legal course of action in all the states, it
just says recognizes, recognizes, recognizes this law. North Carolina, it adds,
recognized this alienation of affection and is one of the states.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Where it is still frequently litigated.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
So for whatever reason, maybe it's the attorneys in North
Carolina who understand this is an avenue where people can
seek some sort of financial They can reclaim some sort
of financial gain because of what happened to them or
are wrong that they believe was done to them. This
is an avenue where you can say, hey, yes, I
can financially get some money. And obviously the lawyers line
(20:50):
their pockets at the same time.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
But you call I mean for the people on that side. Well,
the woman who whoever whatever she might have gone through
a cure at Montague, Yes, what she went to look
if she feels she was in a loving relationship, she
feels that her husband in that relationship would still be
good and solid had this other person not entered their lives.
(21:12):
And I don't know, we think about you said the vow,
and I guess that's right. I'm trying to find some
way of being on the side of the law in
North Carolina.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
I'm trying to.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Find a way to go okay, that there is value
in doing it this way. I'm struggling with that, but
I don't want to take away from what she's been
she's been through and feels. But if you can understand
and respect and honor how she feels, it doesn't also
necessarily mean you need to give her two million dollars
from the person outside of America.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
And I just think I would also just want to
end with the perspective that there is a reason why
the majority of states in this nation chose to get.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Rid of this law.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
For whatever reasons, each individual state had to get rid
of it. But there are only yes, seven and states
in this country where you can sue for this this
uh seemingly art well, it's not seemingly archaic law that
is modern and certainly paying out in.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
This specific case in North Carolina. Who knew? At least
I didn't. But with that hope you learned something. Everyone.
I may be robot alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk
to you soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.