Advice, Please

[woodlawn]

>First, thank you for taking my problem seriously and giving

>what I hope is sound advice.

 

Whether the advice is sound depends on the actual nature of the problem.

 

> I must admit, though, that I am

>now even more concerned given some of the things some of you

>have outlined.

>I have a successful and relatively public business. I would

>lose my business if this became public.

 

My advice was based on the notion that what you are concerned about is a palimony suit. Such a suit would be a matter of public record, with the complaint against you available for anyone who cares to read it, and if you are well known in your community it is likely that it would be reported in the media. Again, I know of no way to prevent such a suit other than reaching an agreement with the person who might bring it. Such an agreement could easily (easy for me, anyway) be drafted so as to avoid revealing any details of your relationship that you do not want made public. Accusing him of harassment and getting a restraining order certainly would not prevent him from filing suit. Nor would threatening him with an extortion charge -- Bill O'Reilly tried that with the woman who accused him of sexual harassment and it certainly didn't work for him.

 

> This fellow is pretty

>much a tough guy. At least that is his persona in public.

>I've gotten to know a softer side, but the "danger" side is

>always there. If what he has told me of some of his exploits

>are even a third true, this guy could be a problem. Regarding

>the palimony suit against his former boyfriend. He was

>overheard mentioning to a third party that he wished he could

>figure out a way to sue so-and-so for support, since he had

>done so much work on the boyfriends house. He never actually

>acted on it.

 

As I and others have pointed out, for your buddy to get a lawyer to front the money for a suit against you is easier said than done. If he or his lawyer understands that you will lose everything if this is made public, however, they might draft and threaten to file a complaint on the assumption that you will settle to avoid that. Again, the only way to forestall this is to negotiate an amicable split.

[Guest]

I seriously doubt he has any basis for a palimony suit, especially since you haven't lived together. I can't advise you regarding your employment situation, but I doubt things are as dire as you believe. Even Jimmy Swaggart managed to stay afloat, although his money came almost exclusively from fundamentalist Christian wallets. I would just tell him that your financial situation has changed, and you can no longer afford to support him. If you can, it would be kind to give him a month's "head's up" so he can look for work, but millions of us Americans go to work every day. It's not the end of the world. I see no reason to cave into any blackmail. You've done nothing wrong as far as I can tell.

[Guest zipperzone]

If you have only seen him for 1 day/night a month, as you initial post stated, then I don't understand how he could sue for palimony. Let's face it - you could make a case that you were simply hiring a hooker once a month.

 

And, in addition, you could always claim that you assumed he was a very busy escort with a thriving business, making tons of dough, and you had no idea he was depending on you for his sole support.

 

How could he prove otherwise? Presumably there were no witnesses to your private conversations about his financial matters.

 

I generally don't advocate the telling of lies. But if someone is out to screw me - then all bets are off. All's fair in love and war!

[Guest zipperzone]

>It's obvious he was escorting when he met you....I think

>giving him 1 to 2 month notice is a very good severance

>package.

 

DON'T give him a severance package. This would be an admission that you think you have an obligation to him. To admit that would just be dumb!

[joel304]

Hey,

 

I just read Woodlawn's second response and had a revelation. What the fuck are we talking about? Why are you worried about a palimony suit? What is your goal? Why do I care

 

This is no different than hiring an escort once a month for five years, and then discontinuing the practice. If he's willing to extort you by threatening a palimony suit, there's little that you can do to thwart this, other than threaten him in the way of a countersuit, or tailor a settlement to avoid future action against you.

 

It appears to me, that in the face of harassment, your only option will be a restraining order. As Woodlawn correctly points out, you have no way of keeping anyone from filing suit against you. Furthermore, should a suit be filed, it will be available for any interested party's review.

 

I suggest you tell him nothing, other than your desire to move on without his future services. Should he threaten you, seek a restraining order and have him served. If this doesn't work, solicit your favorite lesbian with a case of Bud, and have her clan kick the livin bgeezus out of him.

[woodlawn]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>Hey,

>

>I just read Woodlawn's second response and had a revelation.

>What the fuck are we talking about? Why are you worried about

>a palimony suit?

 

>This is no different than hiring an escort once a month for

>five years, and then discontinuing the practice.

 

He's worried about a palimony suit because if there are records that prove he's been supporting this guy with monthly payments for more than 5 years, that evidence would bolster a contention that there was a longterm relationship induced by a promise of support.

 

> If he's

>willing to extort you by threatening a palimony suit, there's

>little that you can do to thwart this, other than threaten him

>in the way of a countersuit, or tailor a settlement to avoid

>future action against you.

 

Right.

 

 

>I suggest you tell him nothing, other than your desire to move

>on without his future services.

 

You've suggested a bunch of things that are likely to increase the amount of tension between the principals here. What good is that going to do? If the goal is to make it LESS likely that anything will happen to embarrass what's-his-name publicly, such suggestions are counterproductive. And all of this nonsense about secretly taping the guy or threatening to report him to the IRS -- give me a break. The moral of the story is that if you want advice on how to handle relationship problems gracefully, a message board frequented by people whose social lives consist largely of hiring prostitutes is not the place to find it.

 

Take a lesson from Bill O'Reilly. He had a chance to settle his dispute quietly by paying a lot of money. He refused, and he ended up getting a ton of bad publicity and then settling the dispute by paying a lot of money. Which alternative seems better?

[+ Charlie]

If you have been paying him to work as an "escort", that is a business relationship, not a basis for palimony. If you have been paying him for sex, that is prostitution, which could have criminal consequences for him. If you have been giving him money simply as a gift to a "buddy", then you have certainly exceeded the legal limits, which could have tax consequences. Before you turn this into a legal confrontation, I would talk to him about reducing the amount you can afford to keep giving him, and decide based on his response which of the courses that have been suggested above seems most appropriate. If he is as lazy as you say, he may not do much of anything.

[JT Brooklyn]

IMHO..One Overnite Plus(24 hrs).. Once a month..Paid Cash. Not a Legal Dependant..Sounds like a "Rented Boy" to me. Where does Palimony even come into it? This I think has gotten Blown(not in a good way) very "way out of proportion"..You now are beginning to sound just plain afraid of this guy? Partly,Probably, because of all the "Variations" on your Situation you are "reading".. "Dump him", take it from there..That's what we do in Brooklyn.. :+ :+ :+

[joel304]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>He's worried about a palimony suit because if there are

>records that prove he's been supporting this guy with monthly

>payments for more than 5 years, that evidence would bolster a

>contention that there was a longterm relationship induced by a

>promise of support.

 

I would contend that Ryan has done nothing more than donate funds for companionship on a frequent basis over the course of five years. This, in itself, based upon their prior escort/client relationship, does not bolster a palimony claim. I would assume that Ryan lacks (or should act as if he does) knowledge of Mr. Escort's personal and business finances.

 

>You've suggested a bunch of things that are likely to increase

>the amount of tension between the principals here. What good

>is that going to do?<

 

 

True enough. It depends on Ryan's goals here. If he wishes to thwart or defend a palimony suit, he will have no problem. There simply isn't, in my opinion, (with the evidence presented here) anything to support Mr. Escort's claim. Simply, Ryan has to decide how aggressively he wishes to proceed. In my opinion, I believe that he should weigh his options after telling this guy that he's done.

 

>If the goal is to make it LESS likely

>that anything will happen to embarrass what's-his-name

>publicly, such suggestions are counterproductive.<

 

What's to prevent an action in the future by Mr. Escort? Assuming that a settlement offer is executed, what precludes Mr. Escort from filing suit to contest the agreement and file a palimony suit? The end result of such procedures will most likely result in a quick dismissal of the suit, but where does this prevent public embarrassment? There are no easy solutions to the public display issue. I do, however, concede that intimidating tactics may worsen the outcome, but, if executed properly, they just my scare this guy into finding a new "mark" for support.

 

>And all of this nonsense about secretly taping the guy or threatening to report him to the IRS -- give me a break.<

 

Taping provides proof of harassment (assuming it is admissible and legal in your jurisdiction) down the road for several uses. As far as the IRS ... everybody loses in the end. Stay away.

 

>The moral of the story is that if you want advice on how to handle relationship problems gracefully, a message board frequented by people

>whose social lives consist largely of hiring prostitutes is

>not the place to find it. <

 

Yeah boy. On the other hand, this is a prostitute issue. This may be just the place.

 

>Take a lesson from Bill O'Reilly. He had a chance to settle

>his dispute quietly by paying a lot of money. He refused, and

>he ended up getting a ton of bad publicity and then settling

>the dispute by paying a lot of money. Which alternative seems

>better?<

 

It seems as though Ryan is lacking the "O'Reilly Factor," in that he stated that he can't afford to continue his fuck buddy's allowance. Additionally, there is no guarantee that paying off the guy will buy silence. That's what the lesbian beating is for

 

:-)

[joel304]

>Ryan, we should talk...I have an unlimited long distance phone package...I'd be glad to make the call....this scum punk can be easily dealt with...please email me and we will talk about putting this lame horse down....Nobody with this scums past can prevail in this situation...Let's talk and develop a plan...

 

ChgoBoy<

 

 

OMG. Never befriend anyone with unlimited long distance!

[woodlawn]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>I would contend that Ryan has done nothing more than donate

>funds for companionship on a frequent basis over the course of

>five years. This, in itself, based upon their prior

>escort/client relationship, does not bolster a palimony claim.

 

What's the difference between "donating funds for companionship" on a regular basis over a multi-year period and the behavior for which Lee Marvin got nailed?

 

>What's to prevent an action in the future by Mr. Escort?

 

Nothing. In my first post I made it clear that signing a settlement agreement doesn't guarantee he won't file suit in the future, it merely guarantees that he won't win such a suit. There simply is no way to prevent someone from suing if he's determined to do so.

 

>Yeah boy. On the other hand, this is a prostitute issue.

>This may be just the place.

 

I think the only worthwhile advice Ryan has received so far is to seek the counsel of an expert in his state's domestic relations law. Only someone who knows the escort very well could have a shot at predicting how he would react to any of the approaches that various people have suggested, and none of the people making the suggestions has such knowledge.

 

>It seems as though Ryan is lacking the "O'Reilly Factor," in

>that he stated that he can't afford to continue his fuck

>buddy's allowance. Additionally, there is no guarantee that

>paying off the guy will buy silence.

 

Based on what he's been giving the guy in the past, he doesn't have to be loaded to afford an adequate severance payment. It's just a matter of persuading the guy that accepting it and keeping quiet is his best option.

[joel304]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>What's the difference between "donating funds for "companionship" on a regular basis over a multi-year period and the behavior for which Lee Marvin got nailed?<

 

Ryan and his escort were not cohabitants. This is the thrust of a Marvin suit. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a Marvin contract is established (which I contend that it's not) you must then determine if your home state follows Marvin. If it does, I would refer to the following for my defense:

 

 

Meretricious consideration:

 

Under Marvin, a contract between unmarried persons is invalid "if sexual acts form an inseparable part of the consideration for the agreement." Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 672.

 

The "meretricious consideration" defense was raised successfully in:

 

.................... Jones v. Daly (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500 [176 Cal.Rptr. 130] (demurrer sustained without leave to amend where complaint alleged that plaintiff agreed to act as "a lover, companion, homemaker, traveling companion, housekeeper and cook" for a same-sex partner);

 

.................... Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 653, 664-665 [224 Cal.Rptr. 186] (alleged agreement between a married man and his mistress was based on unlawful consideration); and

 

.................... Bergen v. Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854, 858-860 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 75] (services as a social companion and hostess are inextricably intertwined with the sexual relationship and therefore cannot form the consideration for an agreement.)

 

 

>I think the only worthwhile advice Ryan has received so far is

>to seek the counsel of an expert in his state's domestic

>relations law. Only someone who knows the escort very well

>could have a shot at predicting how he would react to any of

>the approaches that various people have suggested, and none of

>the people making the suggestions has such knowledge.

 

I agree.

[woodlawn]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>The "meretricious consideration" defense was raised

>successfully in:

>

>.................... Jones v. Daly (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500

>[176 Cal.Rptr. 130] (demurrer sustained without leave to amend

>where complaint alleged that plaintiff agreed to act as "a

>lover, companion, homemaker, traveling companion, housekeeper

>and cook" for a same-sex partner);

>

>.................... Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d

>653, 664-665 [224 Cal.Rptr. 186] (alleged agreement between a

>married man and his mistress was based on unlawful

>consideration); and

>

>.................... Bergen v. Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854,

>858-860 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 75] (services as a social companion

>and hostess are inextricably intertwined with the sexual

>relationship and therefore cannot form the consideration for

>an agreement.)

 

Those cites are most interesting and I thank you for presenting them. The Taylor case seems clearly distinguishable. As to the others, it's clearly an issue of fact -- always a roll of the dice. If I understood what Ryan told us, only the two of them are in a position to testify about what their relationship consisted of.

 

After all that has been said, I still think an agreement is the only way to go. If someone is totally dependent on your support and you suddenly tell him it's all over, you can't really expect him to say, "Fine, thanks a bunch, bye" and disappear from your life. He doesn't have much to lose by making trouble, Ryan does have much to lose. A negotiated settlement is worth a shot.

[joel304]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>Those cites are most interesting and I thank you for

>presenting them. The Taylor case seems clearly

>distinguishable. As to the others, it's clearly an issue of

>fact -- always a roll of the dice. If I understood what Ryan

>told us, only the two of them are in a position to testify

>about what their relationship consisted of.

 

Yeah, Taylor is the most relevant case for sure. Which one of us is forwarding the bill to Ryan? I've never done this much typing for free before.

 

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>>Those cites are most interesting and I thank you for

>>presenting them. The Taylor case seems clearly

>>distinguishable. As to the others, it's clearly an issue of

>>fact -- always a roll of the dice. If I understood what

>Ryan

>>told us, only the two of them are in a position to testify

>>about what their relationship consisted of.

>

>Yeah, Taylor is the most relevant case for sure. Which one of

>us is forwarding the bill to Ryan? I've never done this much

>typing for free before.

>

>

 

Joel you will when I slap you with my "you communicated with me" suit, which I believed to be a life long contract of love and support....

[joel304]

RE: The O'Reilly Factor

 

>Joel you will when I slap you with my "you communicated with me" suit, which I believed to be a life long contract of love and support....<

 

Just because I cited the legal remedies to Ryan, doesn't mean that I'd use them in my case against you. Roughly, my plan would include posing as Rick Munroe, offering a free night in room ... say 3003 of the Chicago Hilton? Then you would be greeted by three previous clients of mine ... needless to say, the last memories you would have would be of three brotha's tappin your head to the words of "Straight Outa Compton." Just a first thought though NWA, cica 1990. Peace out.

[Guest]

I agree that any suit would probably be laughed out of court. The issue seems to be whether even the filing of a lawsuit could get the original poster fired. Unless he's a religious leader, or a grade school teacher in Alabama, I really have my doubts as to how realistic a fear getting fired over this would be. However, the original poster knows best what his situation is. One idea would be to discuss this with a friend who might be more objective over the reality of being fired. Since we don't know the original poster's situation, we can only guess. Is there someone you can confide in at work? That might be optimal.

[Ryan]

Dear Gentlemen (Friends),

I decided to confront the issue head-on and as honestly as I could possibly be, hoping that I had had some kind of positive influence in this guy's life, that he had gotten to know me as a decent human being who had never done anything but treat him with respect and dignity. In thinking about it, I could see no time that I was ever anything but generous, kind, thoughtful and decent. I simply met with him and explained that I had to end the relationship because of financial concerns that were unforseen and that I had to take care of.

He was surprised and disappointed. Initially, he was angry that I had not given him more warning (perhaps justifiably). I reminded him that in fact, we had not yet had our assignation for the month, even though I had already given him well over what I would have normally given him by this time in the month. Rent was paid, bills were paid and there was food in the fridge. And I was asking for nothing in return.

We sat quietly for a while, and I was nervous, concerned what he was going to say. In fact, he thanked me for helping him out. And that he thought that maybe he was ready to make some changes himself. And then asked to borrow $500.00. Which I did not give him. He kind of laughed and said, "Can't hurt to try."

I was very anxious about this situation. And I didn't know who to turn to with that anxiety. I can't tell you how important it was for me to be able to come to this forum and be able to talk about this. Each one of you, I believe, gave great advice. And I am so grateful.

There is a cautionary tale in this for me. As much as I want to believe that this is more than business, and sometimes it can be, a person's livelihood is dependent on that relationship. And if you are the primary component of it, then I think you have some responsibility to leave no harm, to do no harm and to be fair. I'm not sure I will be getting that close to another escort. It is sad, because many of the fellows I've engaged are really great guys. But the arrangement is business. Its either that or if a friendship does evolve, then the business side must end. Meaning no sex and no money.

Again, thank you gentlemen.

[Boston Guy]

Nice. :-) And nicely done.

 

I'm very happy it worked out for you.

 

BG

[JT Brooklyn]

"Congratulations". That's the way it usually worked for us in Brooklyn! Tell The Truth and Step Back!!! Alot of times ,too much ADVICE is worse than none..I always liked Lawyers who didn't have too much to say, like "Denny Crane" on Boston Legal! LOL :+ :+ :+

[Guest ChgoBoy]

Ryan so glad to hear this news. Thank God you don't live on Wisteria Lane, this could have turned out much differently.

 

ChgoBoy