An Affair To Remember: North Carolina Man Awarded Nearly $9 Million For Wife’s Infidelity







There is an extraordinary case out of North Carolina where Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson awarded Keith King $8.8 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Francisco Huizar III.  Huizar had an affair with King’s wife and was sued for criminal conversation and  the relatively rare claim of “alienation of affection.”  Only six states currently have alienation of affection laws still on the books. We previously discussed an award of $9 million to a woman in North Carolina.

King owns BMX Stunt Shows and employed his wife, Danielle.  They married in 2010 and have a  5-year-old daughter, according to the Durham Herald-Sun reported.  Danielle admitted that she was unhappy after a year of marriage and pursued marketing tour manager Huizar III of San Antonio, at a BMX show in New York in August 2015.  They were discovered by King from a mysterious phone number on their telephone bill.  King confronted Huizar, who continued to see Danielle and even rented an apartment nearby to continue their affair.  He even allegedly showed up at family vacations and, in 2017, Danielle rented an apartment with Huizar’s name on the lease.  A video recording showed a struggle at the apartment between the men with King in a headlock by Huizar and King asking his wife “You’re picking him over me?”

This type of claim has long been denounced as archaic and the product of a period where women were considered chattel of their husbands.  However, this is now a roughly $9 million affair.

The question is whether the Kings are divorced or whether Danielle could receive half of the proceeds from her affair with Huizar.  That would make an intriguing idea for a mystery novel of a couple who intended to divorce but found a way to divide millions from a man in a manufactured alienation tort conspiracy.

Huizar plans to appeal.


Kudos: Professor Roger E. Schechter

66 thoughts on “An Affair To Remember: North Carolina Man Awarded Nearly $9 Million For Wife’s Infidelity”

  1. I appreciate, cause I found just what I used to be taking a look
    for. You have ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day.


    Californians Puzzled by Trump’s Failure to Blame Wildfires on Hillary

    “SACRAMENTO, California (The Borowitz Report)—Californians were baffled on Monday by a series of tweets by Donald J. Trump in which he utterly failed to blame the state’s current wildfires on Hillary Clinton.

    In interviews with residents up and down the Golden State, Californians agreed with the assessment of Harland Dorrinson, a Modesto native, that Trump’s failure to pin the fires on Clinton was “nothing short of bizarre.”

    “When he said that there wasn’t enough water to put out the fires, I naturally assumed he was going to accuse Hillary Clinton of sneaking into California and somehow stealing all of our water,” Dorrinson said. “It was so confusing when he didn’t.””

  3. “Alienation of affection” has been a bit of a mystery to me. An outsider cannot take affection that is not offered. This is an old fashioned believe absolving the cheating spouse of responsibility.

    I have no respect for people who knowingly have affairs with married people. However, the majority of the blame lies with the cheating spouse. They are the ones who are married, lying, and sneaking around.

    In addition, I read an interview with a counselor who dealt with healing marriages after an affair. They said that something like 40% of their clients contracted a sexually transmitted disease because their spouse cheated on them. That’s assault. It is reprehensible to infect a partner with an STD because they trust that their spouse is monogamous. In some cases, it’s murder, when the STD is life threatening.

    I think that alienation of affection laws should be replaced with assault laws, or something similar, to be applied when a spouse cheats and infects the wife or husband with an STD.

  4. Is there no longer a moderator for this site? Hate speech in the comments used to be disallowed.

    1. Instead of trying to shut me up by removing my comments, why don’t you try engaging in discussions. You could start by explaining why you think I am wrong.

      I know that it is a hard thing for Liberal types to do, to discuss things instead of just bullying people into silence, but it is probably what you are going to have to do here. Sooo, take off your Antifa mask, put down your baseball bat, and try using stuff like logic and reason.

      I know it will be difficult for you, but just #walkaway, OK?

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  5. The law may be archaic but I see nothing wrong with it. Whens someone deliberately engages in a sexual relationship leading to the destruction of a family then why not be able to pursue an avenue that punishes the guilty for their unethical conduct? And it should work both ways so that a woman could sue if someone destroys her family via a sexual affair. Perhaps if there were consequences to such dishonest and unethical behavior then maybe people would think twice before engaging in such destructive conduct.

    1. Hey, for once you are right about something!

      There is plenty of “strange” out there for people, what with Tindr and Grindr, and Craigslist, sooo why help destroy someone’s marriage to “git you some???”

      As far as I know, Alienation of Affection works both way, and women can sue for it as well as men.

      Plus now, with all the queers getting “married”, the act of cheating can introduce the prospect of AIDS into the relationship. I read somewhere once that “marriage” was an extra risk factor for queers, because 1), sodomy is the best way to spread the virus, and 2) cheating and messing around is par for the course for queers.

      The Poor Little Bottom, who stupidly assumes his Top is being faithful, or at least honest about who else he is screwing per the terms of the Open Marriage Agreements sooo popular among queers, will not insist his partner wear a condom.

      Which is pretty dumb, because if you are a queer, you should assume your partner is screwing anything in pants, or in dresses if they are trannies or drag queens, and take precautions. But the idiots don’t. Like dumba$$ Anderson Cooper who was surprised that his big hunk of a lover was being unfaithful to him. What a maroon! He’s a queer! Duh! Of course he is screwing around. Anderson probably was, too.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. “I read somewhere once that “marriage” was an extra risk factor for queers, because 1), sodomy is the best way to spread the virus, and 2) cheating and messing around is par for the course for queers.”

        Did you by any chance read that…somewhere you wrote it? Hateful much?

        1. No, I actually read it somewhere. I forget where. It was online. And if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Most of the HIV, new cases and old, comes from what the CDC calls MSM (men having sex with men) sex.

          That is because the anal tissues are particularly susceptible to the bug. Sooo, if you have a naive little Bobby Bottom who assumes that Tommy Topper is faithful to him, because they are married, then he will probably not insist on Tommy using a condom when sodomizing him. But how many queers are faithful???

          It is not a particularly tasteful thing to think about, much less discuss, but I assume we are all pretty much adults here. I probably am hateful, but I am also honest and truthful.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        2. I read a stat some years ago, I don’t recall the source, but it said that gay men are the most promiscuous, followed by lesbians, then straight men, and then straight women. I only recall it because I was surprised that lesbian women are reportedly more promiscuous than straight men. I’m not sure why the stats are what they are, but there you have it.

          1. That surprises me, as well, TIN. I have been under the impression that lesbians aren’t all that into sex at all in reality. They’re just not into men, and enjoy having a steady girlfriend.

            1. Actually, about 85% of “lesbians” are into men, if several studies are to be believed. They are having sex with men during the same time they are having sex with women. It was a British Medical study. This is not the original article I read, but it has the same conclusion:


              The upshot to doctors was, even if a patient said she was a lesbian, you should check her out for all the usual heterosexual problems, too.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. I’m certainly no expert on the subject, but I had assumed that lesbians were significantly more promiscuous than straight women for two reasons: 1) They have higher testosterone levels than straight women (at least the butch ones do); and 2) They can go to a lesbian bar or wherever they go and hook-up indiscriminately without fear of being physically harmed or killed by another female. I would think that the fear of ending up alone with a violent or psycho partner would be a huge deterrent for straight women hooking up with strange men.

                1. You make some good points. Personally, I would be afraid of any sex partner, because I think severe mental illness is pretty endemic in the country. And my goodness, but women are crazy.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                2. TIN – lesbians are as likely to be in abusive relationships as straight couples.

              2. Sigmund Freud understood 100 years ago all of humanity is bisexual. It is simply social anxiety that gets people to repress themselves.

                Studies of sex with people who live in sex-segregated environments have proven just about everyone is bisexual even if they have a preference.

                There are some people called asexual who don’t have any sexual interest at all but they are not very common.

                1. I am in the asexual group, because I could care less about mating with anybody. Which for me, is more a mental thing, because I do appreciate male attractiveness, I just prefer being by myself and not having to put up with other humans on an intimate basis. Which, makes me abnormal. I am not a virgin, however, and have lived with a couple of men when I was in my 20’s. I have no desire to sleep with a woman, even though several family members think I am a lesbian.

                  As far as everybody being “bi”, I don’t think so. That is not my experience. And, if you are going to accuse me of using 1980 stats, which I didn’t, then Good Grief, how far back are reaching going to Freud???

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. Squeeky – Freud was discounted long ago. You are like my mother after my father died. She said it took so long to train him she did not have the energy to train another one. 😉 So she remained celibate.

                    1. That is kind of how I am except I never really liked being in relationships period. I just had boyfriends because everybody else did, and I didn’t want to be seen as weird or anything. But deep down inside, all I really ever needed a man for was to pay for drinks at the bar, and maybe some fried oysters or nachos.

                      Is that cold??? Plus, I really like being on my own schedule. This is one reason why I am against all this idiotic gender crap and feminist crap. I think all of us would be happier like it was in the 1950’s where the expectations were to get married and have kids and raise a family. There is a certain security in following an expected role as opposed to be a free spirit.

                      That is maybe why Amazon Jungle People are happy wearing bird feathers and eating monkeys in their little tribe, while us Americans are popping anti-depressants, legal and otherwise, like candy.

                      I would probably be happier if I had gotten married at 18, had a couple of little Squeekies, and stayed home pushing a June Cleaver big a$$ vacuum around while wearing pearls.

                      Who knows???

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. Squeeky – if you are happy being you that is the important thing. That is what we all have to come to grips with at some point. 😉

                2. I think ol’ Sigmund was just projecting his own queery longings on everyone else. We know that he was obsessed with penises, to the point of assuming that everyone, even women, wanted one. And what could be more gay than penis worship? But as poor Siggy lived in an era where he could be thrown in the Royal Dungeon for partaking in ‘the love that dare not speak its name,’ he was left to intellectualizing his sad fantasies.

            2. FFS – I can only speak from anecdotal knowledge but every lesbian I have known has been very sexual. And they are promiscuous. I used to take a lesbian friend to a lesbian bar because she did not have a car and I would stay and sit with her for a while. It was absolutely fascinating. It was pick-up city. 😉 And the bathrooms were always busy with sexual activity.

              1. PCS: when I worked in SF there was a lesbian in my unit. She always volunteered for travel duty because she said she welcomed the opportunity to go to other cities and play around. She had a live-in “partner,” but she definitely wasn’t monogamous and didn’t care who knew it!

      2. HIV is now spreading faster amongst heterosexuals. Your statistics are from the 1980s.

        Plus what does sexual orientation have to do with this?

        It’s not relevant to this situation.

        1. Not in the United States. Here, it is overwhelmingly men who have sex with men who get HIV. From the CDC, in February 2018:

          “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men account for 70% of new HIV infections in the United States.”

          “In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. ”

          That is just the facts of the matter. I suspect that many women who get HIV catch it from men who have sex with men. But, the statistics do not investigate that aspect of it. Which, IMHO, any woman who knowingly has sex with a queer or bi man has to be completely frigging nuts.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. The US is only one country, whereas HIV is a worldwide disease.

            The vast majority of HIV cases are spread through vaginal intercourse. In the southern 25% of Africa HIV rates are around 20% and it is spread through vaginal sex almost exclusively.

            Their sexual practices are not radically different from most other countries.

            1. I don’t live in the rest of the world. I live in the United States. The reason why there are higher HIV rates in Africa, is higher virus loads due to lack of medication. Once again, the CDC:

              “Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. Although receptive anal sex is much riskier for getting HIV than insertive anal sex, it’s possible for either partner — the insertive or receptive — to get HIV.”


              If you want to pretend that HIV is a majority heterosexual problem in the United States, then have at!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. Are we really supposed to believe African stats on AIDS and HIV? Countries that are virulently anti-gay claim that “virtually all” of their HIV cases are spread through heterosexual sex. Gee, that’s surprising.

            3. The vast majority of HIV cases are spread through vaginal intercourse. I

              The World Health Organization has used a different definition of the disease in Africa than it does in countries with functional public health regimes. The numbers are inflated.

            4. MarryaMinority – I worked on a few HIV studies. The only contribution that I am going to make on this particular comment thread is the following:

              The virus is spread when it gets in the bloodstream. That can occur from sharing infected needles, the use of dirty dental tools, stepping on a dirty needle, or sexual activity. The reason why sexual activity can spread HIV is because the blood vessels are quite near the surface in the vagina, penis, and anus. The vagina has more elasticity than the anus, which is more prone to micro tears. Therefore, HIV is spread more easily through anal intercourse than vaginal, but of course the latter is still possible.

              If an HIV positive patient only had sex with one partner, and never shared needles or donated blood, then his disease would die with that couple. HIV could have been stopped in a single generation by simply being monogamous, or use a condom each and every time (which is not as safe as monogamy), and never use injectable recreational drugs, or at least not share needles. That’s it. Basically don’t be promiscuous or shoot up heroin, or if you do, use a condom and clean needle. It should not have been that hard to stop this plague. If they had quarantined each and every initial sufferer of this deadly infectious disease across the globe, HIV would have gone extinct. (We won’t get into the simian angle for brevity.) They neither quarantined the gen one patients nor do patients follow the very simple procedure to prevent the spread of the disease. This is so frustrating, because millions of people around the globe die before their time.

              Sub Saharan Africa still has the highest number of HIV positive people in the globe. Again, stopping HIV in Africa should be real simple. The risk factor for Africa appears to be the maintenance of long term relationships with multiple people, including polygamy. The rates of HIV infection in places like Botswana, for example, exploded.


              “Morris contends that Africans in ordinary heterosexual relationships are linked, not only to each other but also to the partners of their partners’ partners—and to the partners of those partners—via a web of sexual relationships extending across huge regions. If one member contracts HIV, then everyone else may too.” A polygamous African man is unfaithful to his wives, gets infected with HIV, and then infects all of his wives, who then infect their babies. It’s a crisis. This is yet another reason why religions that promote polygamy are harmful.

              Another driver for multiple exposures is that African nations have a superstition that having sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDS, which is known as “Old Man Bones”. It’s known as the “virgin cleansing myth”, and is responsible for HIV positive men raping females as young as infants.

              The major risk factor for contracting HIV is either promiscuity or having multiple long term sex partners, and sharing infected needles. That is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals (and the dozens of sexualities that have recently been generated.) If the homosexual community in the states has a high HIV rate, then that’s because they fall into the above category, period. The same goes for heterosexuals in Africa. The virus does not care about gender or sexuality. It just seeks entry. Bar that entry and drive it to extinction.

              People of all sexual orientations deserve love and happiness and health. No one should die of HIV. If you read the cases studies, it is unbearably sad and a very difficult way to go. It does not require any cutting edge technology or vaccine to destroy HIV. Why can we as a global species not get our act together and purge this scourge? If we ever do come up with an effective HIV vaccine, the outcome will be a surge in unprotected promiscuous sex, which will create an evolutionary push to fill the vacuum with some new dread disease that will spread exactly the same way.

              1. Karen S – how are you and the horsies doing? Is your home safe? Are you and they safe?

                1. Thanks for asking, Paul. Amazingly, with 17 fires burning in CA, we are safe. So many human-caused fires occur every year, it’s disheartening. The air quality all across CA is quite poor at the moment. The air is brown like 1970’s smog from smoke blowing in, even from distant regions. I did have family who had to evacuate, but their homes survived.

                  A doctor whom my cousin knew escaped the fire by the skin of her teeth. A neighbor had to smash through a fence to get to a hiking trail, and her car got stuck and stalled. She and her husband had to run through the forest for around 4 miles, wearing her slip and slippers on her feet, even crawling under trees on her belly, with the fire hot on her heels. They got separated in all the noise and confusion. She described running with deer, fawns, rats, and mice all trying to escape. She was on her cell with her daughter, screaming, when her phone went dead. Her daughter thought she’d burned to death until she managed to get to a phone an hour later. She and her husband both made it out. A dramatic escape. They made it to two cops who got them into an escape vehicle. Thank God for all of the firefighters, police, other first responders, and people just helping each other.

                  1. Karen S – I am glad you are doing well. Talked to my sister in Carlsbad and she says the air quality is not too bad yet.

                    1. Oh, give it time. Now we have the Holy Jim Fire in Cleveland Forest, and the homeless set another blaze somewhere in LA, I think Carson.

            5. One morning not long ago, I accompanied an HIV-prevention worker in Botswana named Willington Mongwa as he made his rounds in Old Naledi, a relatively poor neighborhood in the capital, Gaborone. We passed a bar in which about 15 people, most of them men, sat on tree stumps drinking beer made from distilled sorghum. I asked Willington if we could ask the drinkers some questions. We approached a group of three young men, and they offered us some of their beer and gratefully accepted the condoms we offered them. “How long will it take you to go through those?” I asked one man. “Let’s see, there are about 10 here, so it should take about 15 days.” I asked him how many girlfriends he had, and he told me he had three, one real girlfriend and two secret girlfriends. He had been seeing all three for at least two years. He used condoms with the secret girlfriends but not with the real one. How many secret boyfriends do those secret girlfriends have? I asked. He said he didn’t know, but you can never trust women, and that’s why he used condoms. And the real girlfriend? “As I said, you never know with women, but if she has other partners, I hope she uses condoms with them.”

              Several other men I met had similar sexual arrangements. Most women I spoke to denied that they had partners other than their husbands or fiancés, but the men frankly assumed that women conducted their affairs much as they themselves did…

              The solution, says Green, is for people to limit themselves to one sexual partner. In Uganda, where the slogan of the government HIV prevention program in the 1980s and 1990s was “zero grazing,” HIV rates have fallen from 18 percent in 1993 to around 6 percent today. A report from the United States Agency for International Development says the number of men with casual sexual partners fell from 35 percent in 1989 to 15 percent.”

              Like I said, it’s real simple. Free love has dire consequences.

  6. If that S.C .law goes to Supreme Court, the husband could always argue ‘originalism’ (a favorite of the conservative majority of the Roberts Court populated by Federalist Society justices). The Supreme Court majority might feel compelled to stick to Scalia’s ‘originalism’ principle used in Citizen’s United that corporations are people and can donate unlimited amounts of campaign money anonymously. Thus, original intent of Founding Fathers was indeed alienation of affection. That could set women’s marital rights back 200 years when women didn’t have any rights & was quite often put in lunatic asylums. Shall Ms King be remanded to a lunatic asylum.

  7. This type of claim has long been denounced as archaic and the product of a period where women were considered chattel of their husbands. However, this is now a roughly $9 million affair.

    That’s a bizarre characterization. In what state did the law declare ‘alienation of affections’ a tort only when adultery is committed by the wife?

    No fault divorce was a wretched policy mistake and should disappear.

    1. As to a cause of action for alienation of affection there was an equitable bar against actions by a wife as she could only bring legal action through her husband and he would also receive the benefit of any funds she recovered. Such an action was equitably barred because the husband was equally guilty.

      1. I don’t think divorce suits were terribly common in this country in the 1840s.

        1. An Alienation of affection action didn’t require a divorce, just a breakdown of the marriage.

  8. Sounds like the wife just wanted to marry the husband’s money, not the husband himself. Having a kid was a mistake on many levels. What will the daughter think when she is old enough to understand what happened?

  9. She should not have had a child if she wasn’t satisfied in the marriage after only one year.

    Now the child is going to be used as a pawn in the dissolution.

    I have seen many women in my generation get pregnant in order to try to get their partners to commit to them and support them financially.

    It doesn’t work because having a baby won’t make your personalities compatible, and we know there are a huge number of men who do not stay with their baby’s mothers.

  10. Pimped out for $9 million and all she gets is to keep the client. That payout could very well alienate Huizar’s affection and make King the object of her desire.

  11. I doubt that the verdict will be upheld on appeal. It seems that the facts of the case do not support an “alienation of affection” finding against the boyfriend. The wife testified that SHE was the one who pursued the BF and initiated the affair. She testified that she realized almost from the beginning that her marriage was a mistake; that her husband was 15 years her senior, was insecure, controlling and suspicious, and that she wanted out of the marriage. Reading between the lines, I’m thinking that she married an older man for money, but soon realized there was an associated price that she didn’t want to pay. Meanwhile the husband was insecure about his trophy wife losing interest in him, but his controlling, manipulative actions only increased her alienation. Along comes a young, fun, good-looking guy, and she was out the door. So the spurned husband filed a revenge suit. I don’t believe the courts should be used for revenge or spite suits.

    1. TIN – did the bf refuse to unzip his pants? Several times and in different places?

      1. PCS – No, he didn’t restrain himself. But that’s not the point. He did not “alienate” the wife from her husband. She testified that she was already alienated; that the marriage was toast years before she started pursuing this BF. So why blame it all on the BF? The wife was more to blame than he was.

        1. TIN – the bf does not have clean hands in this and I do not care how much the wife covers for him. She is someone else’s wife.

    2. Except that she wasn’t “out the door.” She didn’t divorce him. She maintained her parasitic “marriage” and became more flagrant with the affair. It’s really an interference with contract claim; crazy to call it a marriage.

      1. No, I’ve never represented the wife. I don’t believe she was a party to this action. If I had represented the boyfriend, however, I would have had the case removed to federal court, based on diversity of citizenship. The scorned husband lives in NC; the BF lives in Texas. A federal court would have been less likely to entertain punitive damages in a revenge suit by a vindictive scorned husband whose wife lost interest in him years before she ever met the BF. But the case was decided by a local judge in NC, and the results are not surprising for a relatively backward state.

    3. Tin, the court was not required to believe her testimony over the testimony of other witnesses. Presumably her husband or other witnesses provided contrary testimony as to some of these points. In that case, the appeals court won’t reweigh the credibility of the witnesses.

      1. Richard: You are correct that the appellate court won’t reweigh the testimony of witnesses. But I do believe it will consider whether the damages are excessive. In this case, the H argued that the BF destroyed his marriage. But there are objective facts showing that the W was equally, if not more than equally guilty of damage to the marriage. For example, the W rented an appt in NC for a love nest, since the BF lived in Texas. And the W was the one who had an obligation to the H, not some random BF that she pursued years after losing interest in the H. I think these damages are clearly excessive given that the marriage didn’t have much value; it was on the rocks years before she ever met the BF, and the wife agressively pursued the BF; he didn’t come along and break-up an otherwise happy marriage.

        1. I think these damages are clearly excessive given that the marriage didn’t have much value;

          One of the other lawyers on this site is a White Knight for prostitutes. The miasma is everywhere.

          1. DSS – I think if porn is legal, prostitution should be legal. For both sexes.

      1. “Adult” is not what you’d call the ho’ over whom they’ve been fighting.

  12. Usually, you are not allowed to profit from your own crime so I would think she would not be able to share in the proceeds. This would become sole and separate. Although, who the heck knows what the divorce laws are.

    1. It’s not a crime, it’s a civil action, and the happy couple is still married, so she would indirectly benefit from anything collected from the BF, since it would increase the overall family financial standing. But since NC is not a community property state, it would technically be the husband’s separate property, which he could keep in a separate bank account and not use for any assets such as new house or cars that they would both enjoy. In the event of divorce, which in this case seems inevitable, the $9 million judgment would be considered an asset of the husband, thereby substantially increasing the wife’s claim for alimony. In his lawsuit, the husband unwisely blamed all the wrongdoing on the BF, so the wife would not be considered as benefiting from her own misconduct. Overall, I see this as bad lawyering by both the attorneys for the H and the BF.

      1. ill bet this tawdry wench doesnt have $900 in her bank account let alone millions

Comments are closed.