Thanks to Marginal Revolution for this astonishing story. It refers to a man who sued his wife's new lover for damages on the grounds that the new beau had alienated his wife from him. And the guy won!

All Arthur Friedman wanted to do was liven things up in the bedroom. He and his wife, Natalie, had been married for ten years, and things were getting a bit, ahem, stale. Instead of the usual suspects -- lingerie, porn, toys, weekend get-a-ways -- Arthur had one tiny request: he wanted to watch his wife engaging in sexual acts with other men and women. (We imagine her response was something along the lines of, "oh honey, how romantic!")

In the name of love, Natalie obliged, and somewhere betwixt the twosomes and threesomes and foursomes (oh my!), a man named German Blinov was thrown into the mix. He and Natalie found that their interest in one another went further than the mere satisfaction of her husband's voyeuristic desires; they fell in love. Blinov divorced his wife, and Natalie ended things with Arthur, who then set out for a little retaliation.

Friedman sued Blinov using an archaic law, alienation of affections, arguing that Blinov was the direct cause for the alienation of Natalie's affection toward Arthur. This absurd law, dating back to 1864, is only currently recognized in 7 states (unfortunately for Blinov, Illinois is one of those). Usually these cases are thrown out because it is too difficult to prove that the defendant was the sole cause of the dissolution of the marriage. And because, in our opinion, the law itself is completely ridiculous.

In court, Natalie stated that her love for Friedman had started to cool before she met Blinov, and quickly dropped to subzero when Friedman asked her to start sleeping with other people. A valid argument, which is why it's so surprising that Friedman was somehow able to successfully prove that Blinov was indeed responsible for the alienation of affection. The judge, using bizarre calculations we hope we never have to make, ruled that Blinov owes Friedman $4,802. Who said you couldn't put a price on love?

That is insane. Let's set aside the fact that he brought it on himself. You don't own your wife's affection, so you can't sue for damages to it.