Jackson Jambalaya

Wow! Nothing like telling the public that you are a cuck. Oh, and Mike, wear your fucking mask in your barber shop! You are the only person not wearing one!

"It is high time the Legislature abolished this tort. Divorce provides a resolution of sorts while alienation of affection lawsuits continue the war. In this case, a spouse wants out of a marriage but can't get a divorce. She moves out but her social life is forever held hostage to the real threat of lawsuit hell, thanks to a quirk in Mississippi case law."

So KF, if someone came and took your wife from you, and you didn't want the divorce because you still love your wife, and your wife continues to spurn your affects for the new affections of the one person who interfered in your marriage that resulted in your wife leaving you, how would you propose you handle it? Guns in the street at High Noon? Do tell please.

Kingfish has a good point about abolishing the tort.

Having said that, if McRae committed malpractice, then I hope Land gets his butt.

Why does Land seem to be involved in so many court and lawsuit issues?

How would you be able to comment on this, in any fashion?

Dude is a nut. Who would want their dirty laundry to public?

Just how many times has Mike Land filed a civil suit? Seems like a lot to me.

Alienation of affection is as legitimate as any other tort that might cause severe emotional distress. Perhaps KF has never had a wife and been through this type of traumatic event. It's no doubt funny when it happens to others, but it feels a little different when it happens to you. And, if the suit is frivolous, the defendants have ample legal rights to go after the malicious plaintiff.

Motorcycle Chuck doing Motorcycle Chuck things.

1:54. Seems a lot to me, too.

This guy just wants his way or no way, and is embarrassing himself trying. What a fool.

Interesting read....note Mississippi does not have any legal term called “prescription period.”

KF hailing from Louisiana and having studied the Napoleonic code invariably meant to say the statute of limitation period.

Also...I do t agree with the judge nor will the appellate courts that Chuck missed the statute of limitation.....if the couple reconciled and then she set about again getting diddled by the dude then the statute starts all over again.

From a public policy perspective, alienation of affection is sound. If the goal of our state is to decrease the amount of broken families, this would have that effect. Of course having it on the books is an entirely different thing from judges enforcing it.

2:25: Maybe I was just being a smartass with that term? You know, like I use middle English s's sometimes. Yeesh.

You want the tort, fine. But make it easier to get divorced or legal separation that stops the clock.

I can't imagine getting into middle-to-old age, having the intelligence and life experience necessary to run a business, and still insisting on publicly litigating stupid personal slights.

Just imagine being that bereft of perspective and maturity. What ever happened to the good old-fashioned "have a fistfight and then let it go" approach?

Mississippi laws make it awfully tough to get a divorce without the consent of both parties. Watched several recently from the sidelines and it’s ugly.

When a man goes up to the front of the church to testify, Pastor says tell it all brother, after the man finishes the Pastor says, "son, i don't believe i would have told THAT"

KF is finally right on one of his declarations - its past time for Mississippi to abolish the alienation of affection statute. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, all but seven have abolished their statutes on alienation, either through legislation or through lawsuits. And one of those seven (North Carolina) does not allow an alienation lawsuit if it pertains to an extramaterial affair that began after the separation of the couple.

Just like it is time for people to move on after the marriage is no longer the covenant it was intended to be, its time for our state to move on and get rid of this antiquated concept.

You people who are posting about 'airing laundry in public' do realize, but maybe not, that filing a lawsuit is the only way to resolve this issue and, once filed, the laundry can be picked up by anybody who realizes you dropped it off at the cleaners.

If you think nobody but the counter attendant is going to know about your ring around the collar....think again, as this thread reveals.

PS: I thought McRae was dead. My apologies to the crotch-rocket water-works speedster in black. VROOM VROOM.

@1:35 If someone doesn’t want you, they just don’t want you. No need of holding on whether you still love them. I would have helped her pa ck her bags.

An Attorney Malouf did quite well with a case like this years back if memory is correct. If children are involved it also helps financially support them as well as opposed to taxpayers. If it is on the law books ZMcRae should have done what he was hired to do.

McRae is an attorney who had a job to do. If McRae did it correctly, then Land needs to go cry in the corner and leave McRae alone. However, if McRae didn't do his job, then Land has every right to go after McRae. And it doesn't matter if Tee and Mike should divorce, patch it up, or whatever else. This is simply about McRae and his responsibilities as a legal professional.

Mike Land seems to find himself in lots of conflict. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong, but he always seems to be in the middle of something lately. That fact alone makes me wary of the guy.

Sounds really sketchy. Most would get another lawyer and not wait 7 years to complain that a case was not filed.

Drama Queen versus Drama King.

Isn’t the statute of limitations for legal negligence 3 years as well?

As to the A of A tort, it’s a good one to have in our law.
As to making divorce easier, it seems easy enough. Perhaps some don’t take it seriously enough.

Actually the term “prescription” is not unknown or improper in discussing common law doctrine in reference to the barring of a suit by means of a statute of limitations. So while a bit uncommon for lawyers to use the term, KF was not wrong in his use of the term. The term is not unique to the civil law tradition that Louisiana follows.

"Mike Land seems to find himself in lots of conflict. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong, but he always seems to be in the middle of something lately. That fact alone makes me wary of the guy."

You've got this one wrong! It was the ever-popular mayor of Madison who forced the 'Reeves pandemic closure issue' by having the barber arrested for being open...not the operator of the business who caused that nonsense. As always, she wanted to be in the news. He was simply collateral damage to her theatrics. As hundreds before him have been.

The legal profession is full of churner lawyers that make no positive contribution to society whatsoever as their only goal is to keep the parties fighting in order to line their immoral pockets (and when the laws of nature start dealing them hardships hell they’re too stupid to know they’re just reaping what they’ve sown i.e. karma is a fickle bitch).

If McRae fits the bill then hopefully he loses; but good luck with that (read “Kings of Tort” by Adan Lange and Tom Dawson and read “The Fall of the House of Zeus” by Curtis Wilkie).

Alienation of Affection lawsuits were created by lawyers for the purpose of churning legal fees for losers looking to blame someone other the person (spouse) that they had their contract (vow) with regardless of whether or not said spouse has a good reason to dump said loser -

and of course….gold diggers.

Torts are civil wrongs committed by a person against another person(s), and it is wrong for a person to seduce another person's spouse and cause a marriage to break up in the process. The alienation of affection tort and lawsuit allows the wronged spouse to recover from the alienator. Without it, their would be a wrong without a remedy.

However, MS law should make it easier for an unhappy spouse to divorce, regardless of the reason. A person shouldn't be locked in and legally required to remain in a marriage if he/she is unhappy but their spouse won't agree to a divorce. The old policy concern of supposedly protecting women and children from falling into poverty by being easily abandoned by a husband/father is outdated in today's society. More and more women are bypassing marriage and having children outside of wedlock, raising them without a husband or father around. It's becoming more of the norm, unfortunately. But, the MS law that makes it difficult to get out of a marriage is simply discouraging people from marriage at this point.

@6:11 I agree, but Land was still involved.

1. Issue with opening during the pandemic (I agree with Land).

2. Suit over noncompete agreement with other barber (I don't know the facts).

3. Issue with wife's lover (McRae apparently didn't file against the lover)

4. Issue with McRae (I don't know the facts).

I'm just saying that Land has been involved in a lot lately. Some people are always in the middle of suing or being sued. I personally try to stay away from folks who always want to litigate. Because it is expensive.

Make divorce easier-are you kidding me? We already have no fault divorce. 1) what more do you want? 2) why in the world would make divorce easier be a good thing unless you want more divorces?

This could be a "Mayberry" episode.
Otis Campbell playing the lawyer and Floyd playing the barber.

Alienation of affection is a ridiculous concept. If a man, or woman, wants to ride a different pony, they go to the corral and mount one, No pun intended. A of A then gives leave to sue the pony. Just another throwback to the unsustainable "moral" concepts created by religion.

@8:36 there is no such thing as a "no fault" divorce in MS. We have irreconcilable differences as a grounds for divorce. However BOTH parties have to consent to an IR divorce. That is the section that needs to be amended. We are one of the very few states that does not have a true no fault divorce. When you don't have a true no fault divorce, you end up in situations like this where one spouse essentially holds the marriage hostage by not consenting to IR.

I believe that is the argument most of the posters are making. MS needs to move to a true no fault divorce, where either party can file and end the marriage without the other's consent. Think mentally abusive marriages. No fault makes it so those spouses can easily get out of bad relationships, rather than be held prisoner indefinitely.

Yes, that's the answer. Make it easier for people to divorce. It's not like people put their moral integrity on the line by making promises before God or a judge, right, right?

12:38, It's easy to make pious declarations from a moral hilltop, but life and people get messy.

I have witnessed, in my professional capacity, situations where s dominant spouse tries to use the marital covenant and the current divorce statute to enslave the other. I don't believe there is a moral obligation to submit to that, or to perpetuate it.

Thank you 1:27!

12:38 or anyone that agrees with the comment -- I am seriously just asking, honestly curious...

What would you do if your son or daughter was trapped in a marriage that they wanted out of, but had no grounds. Daughter/son wants divorce, spouse says not signing. Do you allow your daughter to remain married? Do you tell her to suck it up? Would you tell her that her moral integrity was lacking?

My guess is not. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ppl with this view point in these situations get left out of a lot of conversations/discussions with the daughter/son, and end up getting to have very little input on the matter.

Imagine that, an anonymous poster making an assumption about another anonymous poster. What are the odds of that happening? Is your "professional capacity" the second oldest one in the world, or the first? Everyone knows what the oldest profession is, maybe not the second. The second involves the morals of the first with the added pathological condition of lying, commonly called a lawyer. That was an assumption on my part, wasn't it? It's simple, if your word is no good, you are no good. Pious, or not, that stands on its own.

If you have to resort to, "what if it was your daughter"- you've already lost the argument. And no, I would never want my daughter to get divorced, nor anyone else's daughter for that matter.

The bottom line is marriage and families are what hold western civilization together. This is established by God through the Bible. You can call me pious or holier than thou all you want, but what you are advocating for would literally make our state weaker by deteriorating the family unit.

4:28/5:17: Perhaps you have a personal motivation for your bright-line stance against divorce. Could it be that you are the dominant slave-master of your house?

From the judgmental, shaming, and self-righteous tone of your comments, I suspect that may be the case.

BTW, those who believe the citizenry owe their lives to strengthen the "state" are generally called "communists," though I'm sure you don't see it that way.

Mississippi also needs to come into the 20th century with its divorce laws. It's a shame that so many people wind up with divorce by extortion (not that this would be the case in the case of which this comment is the case.)

8:18 purely consists of ad hominem attacks. The sign of a weak man losing an argument. Imagine taking the pro-divorce stance and thinking you have the moral high ground. “At least I’m a freedom loving anti-commie!”

The display at the Grammys was a great example of your unrestricted, judgment free “liberty”

This article is about a lawyer missing the expiration of a statute of limitations. This problem happens all the time and it’s about time someone try to hold the lawyer responsible. All Mr. Land did was ask an attorney to enforce a right which the law says he has. All the attention other posters are giving to the underlying cause of action suggests they are lawyers wanting to distract attention away from a problem I have seen in several instances.

I hope Mr. Land is successful. And I hope he brings a bar complaint against Mr. McRae as well.

You may be on to something, 12:33. A senior attorney I work with reminds me that "we all live in glass houses." Each of the times I read the post, I thought "But for the Grace of God . . . "

As I understand it, a missed SOL is negligence per se. But, that doesn't result in liability for the attorney unless the underlying (stale) action would have more probably than not resulted in a recovery.

Even if liability is established, I don't think that, without more, is grounds for sanction by the Bar. I think it just means the attorney and/or his insurance carrier has to get out their checkbook.

It looks like Mr. Land is like a little kid that doesn’t get he way. Instead of picking up his toys and running home he just files another suit. Sounds like he needs to be a man and “grow the eff up”. He seems to have a laundry list of suits against people that violate HIS non-compete contracts because they see who he really is and want to get away from his intimidating tactics. Does he pray on young barbers/stylist with his intimidating tactics then force them to hire an attorney to litigate frivolous actions? Sounds like a real douche bag.

Please write a follow up to this story. Mike Land did not win. Maybe he’ll settle down. He’s tried to prove AOA twice now and lost both times.