For all their sakes, I hope her husband forgives her and rebuild the marriage.
However, if not, then I hope he sues her ass and takes the kids.
However, if not, then I hope he sues her ass and takes the kids.
Woman sues Rogers for revealing her affair
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
He probably knows already that all she'll get is small compensation for violation of privacy, likely to be a few hundred dollars at most. A far cry from the $600,000 she's fighting for.
Then again, since it is Roger's error, they might have to pay her layer if it's proven that she'd tried to get fair compensation from them directly and they refused.
Sounds like you have been cheated on, Machjo. You seem a little spiteful about the topic.
I'd forgiven her, but then she just insisted on keeping our marriage secret. That was the last straw I wasn't going to bend to, and that ended that marriage.
I heard this discussion on talk-radio yesterday. What struck me as Roger's defense is the possibility that they can claim she misrepresented herself via using her maiden name, assuming that she legally took her husband's surname.
Interesting. Is she legally required to use her legal name though? I'd assume she is. If so, then both sides violated the terms of the contract, in which case they're now even.
If not, then they're still stuck with having violated her privacy at least.
Not sure.
I remember the lawyer saying...
"It was an amicable divorce and the flower delivery service may have cost him a significant sum of money for releasing the information without his consent."
That would depend on what name she normally uses, I suppose. I believe that a woman (or a man) has to decide what name to use after marriage, and stick with it.
I know in NB, the man and the woman can use either his surname, or hers, or a hyphenated version, but you have to stick with one.
If she normally used her married name, and got a cell phone under her maiden name, that could indeed be misrepresentation.
I believe that if she signed a contract that she is compelled to use her legal name and employing her maiden name is technically fraudulent and would void the contract.
IF this is the case, she may have no grounds for a law suit.
On a related note, how would she file an action? She is legally recognized as Nagy, but as the contract was in another name, it would have to be that person (that no longer exists) to file suit. (I think)
Good point. That is a legal contract, and so I'd assume her legal name must be used. It really is starting to look like they might be even now, with the judge just calling it case closed.
I'd have to agree... Although I don't wish evil on this woman, she is the victim of her own actions and it was probably only a matter of time before she was caught and everything blew-up in her face.
she is clearly looking at someone else to blame for her debacle instead of blaming herself and taking responsibility for her stupid actions.
I wonder if the had that account prior to getting married, in that case they would have a hard time proving misrepresenting ones self.
Rogers is a pretty nasty company to deal with. We paid one bill for a family memeber on our charge card. Then we realized that another charge went on. I called them to say "hey - you are not allowed to auto bill on this account" and they told me - tough! It reached the point of the two of us yelling at each other and them refusing to stop trying to collect from me when the bill was not mine to pay. I don't have an account with them and I never will. They tried to tell me that it was between me and the charge company and the charge company says it's between me and the person charging me. It went onto my husband's card so - we cancelled his card. He has a new one that we won't activate until this fiasco is well past. I've heard fromothers that Rogers is a pretty nasty company so given my own experience, I'll never deal with them.
In our case, I believe Rogers was the "cheat". They not only charged to an account they didn't have permission to charge to, they refused to stop. Because I buy an item at the Bay for example, doesn't mean that anyone can walk into the Bay and use my account number. What Rogers did was the equivalant to that. The phone in question if now out of service.
In our case, I believe Rogers was the "cheat". They not only charged to an account they didn't have permission to charge to, they refused to stop. Because I buy an item at the Bay for example, doesn't mean that anyone can walk into the Bay and use my account number. What Rogers did was the equivalant to that. The phone in question if now out of service.
I don't think it's illegal to use your maiden name. When a woman gets married and takes on her husband's name, it does not remove her maiden name. A member of my family got divorced and she just went back to using her maiden name. I never asked her if she paid to have the use of it again. But - without looking it up, it is my belief that you are allowed to use the name on your Birth Cert. That is not excusing what this woman did. She set out to cheat and she got caught in the act. Rogers in this case, did not set out to expose her so I don't feel they are to blame.
When estate papers are filed in newspapers, you often see more than one name attached to one person.
By the way, what are the laws with regards to a person going to court and choosing to remain anonymous. I can't imagine she wanted her name in the papers. How did the media get that? Is it a requirement for the courts to reveal this information to the media?
I know our court system is supposed to be open to ensure accountability. But we'd assume that at least identities could be kept confidential at least in the media at a person's request.
I know our court system is supposed to be open to ensure accountability. But we'd assume that at least identities could be kept confidential at least in the media at a person's request.