Jilted Bride Sues & Wins

[decodelighted]

This one is interesting.

Woman gets engaged & in order to live with her fiance gives up 81K job and moves to an area where she can only get a job making 30K . He dumps her before the wedding. She sues & wins 150K.

 

[dreaming of the day]

WOW! That one was interesting! I really don''t know how I stand on the issue, my feelings on the subject actually confuse me. In one aspect I think "all the power to you honey" for going after him and making him pay - considering what she gave up, but on the other hand I feel terribly for the guy - I mean he changed his mind after they were living together and maybehe just couldn''t spend his life with her. I really don''t know, but I am excited to read other PSers posts so that I can form a stronger opinion!!!

 

[Anna0499]

Wow! I think the court really messed up here...I feel bad for the girl, but we don't know the whole story and the jury pretty much said that if someone's FI moves to be with them and gives up a better job, then they are not allowed to change their mind about marrying their FI without paying the lost wages. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion...what if the plaintiff had gotten a BETTER job when she moved and decided she wanted to break the engagement? Would she have to pay him the difference between her old salary & the new one? I would also prefer not to think about engagements as subject to contract law principles...

Every broken engagement would result in a lawsuit because almost everyone invests (and loses) something with a broken engagement. I agree with the defense counsel here, this case says, "File frivolous lawsuits." The plaintiff should've taken into account the possibility of it not working out before uprooting her life and a great job for her FI.

 

[MoonWater]

I''m looking at it as a simple contract issue and I have to say kudos to the girl. Perhaps people will spend more time thinking about getting married before they propose.

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 12:50:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
I''m looking at it as a simple contract issue and I have to say kudos to the girl. Perhaps people will spend more time thinking about getting married before they propose.

I''m going to have to agree. If any "breaches of contract" (aka, infidelities) had been committed then they would have come out in the hearing.

I saw a court hearing where the court ruled that since the man broke off the engagement, that the woman got to keep the ring, because the ring is a symbol of a committment/contract that he agreed to and did not uphold.

I hope all the other L''sIW don''t hate me, but contractually speaking it''s the right judgement. However, I don''t agree with the 15% annual bonus?!?! I would have gone with $50,000/yr for difference in pay, then a 3% average annual inflation.

 

[fieryred33143]

That''s my kind of lady

 

[blackpolkadot]

Personally, I think it is ridiculous. She's the one that said "yes" and moved somewhere new AND chose the lower paying job. It's better he realized they weren't meant to be before they got married! Think of all the time he saved her.

Good thing he didn't go through with it though. Imagine if they had gotten married then divorced... no telling what she would sue for then!

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:14:43 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 12:50:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
I'm looking at it as a simple contract issue and I have to say kudos to the girl. Perhaps people will spend more time thinking about getting married before they propose.

I'm going to have to agree. If any 'breaches of contract' (aka, infidelities) had been committed then they would have come out in the hearing.

I saw a court hearing where the court ruled that since the man broke off the engagement, that the woman got to keep the ring, because the ring is a symbol of a committment/contract that he agreed to and did not uphold.

I hope all the other L'sIW don't hate me, but contractually speaking it's the right judgement. However, I don't agree with the 15% annual bonus?!?! I would have gone with $50,000/yr for difference in pay, then a 3% average annual inflation.

I agree that an engagement ring can possibly be kept by the woman if the man breaks off the engagement, but salary costs? That's just too far out there IMHO. I would need A LOT more information here before I agree with this decision 0 i.e. the employment opportunities in the area and how diligently she tried to find a comparable job, etc. And the court *did* rule that he breached a contract, simply by changing his mind about the engagement...whether or not infidelities would not necessarily be put into a newspaper article. The court is sending out the strong message that you cannot change your mind about an engagement without financial consequences - I don't think we need people to feel trapped in an engagement. I venture to say that the plaintiff was just upset because her engagement was called off and took that anger out on the defendant - I just don't think that the courts are here to help you take vengence because of your relationship woes. Sounds like she has a lot of maturing to do and needs to stop blaming her ex-FI for her mistake. As for making people think before they propose, how about encouraging women to spend more time thinking about the possible outcomes before uprooting and moving to be with a guy?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:27:28 PM
Author: blackpolkadot
Personally, I think it is ridiculous. She''s the one that said ''yes'' and moved somewhere new AND chose the lower paying job. It''s better he realized they weren''t meant to be before they got married! Think of all the time he saved her.

Good thing he didn''t go through with it though. Imagine if they had gotten married then divorced... no telling what she would sue for then!

Think of all the women that keep their high paying jobs and allow their fiances to quit their jobs in order to focus on school or other issues. They take care of them this entire time and then the guy dumps them after they''ve accomplished what they wanted to do. Do you think that''s fair? I suppose you can say if the woman was stupid enough to support him then yes...but then maybe we''re all stupid for loving and trusting our guys enough to be willing to marry them. Seriously, if I were in her position I''d sue his ass as well.

 

[blackpolkadot]

Life is not about fair. Life is about choices.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:30:40 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:14:43 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 12:50:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
I''m looking at it as a simple contract issue and I have to say kudos to the girl. Perhaps people will spend more time thinking about getting married before they propose.

I''m going to have to agree. If any ''breaches of contract'' (aka, infidelities) had been committed then they would have come out in the hearing.

I saw a court hearing where the court ruled that since the man broke off the engagement, that the woman got to keep the ring, because the ring is a symbol of a committment/contract that he agreed to and did not uphold.

I hope all the other L''sIW don''t hate me, but contractually speaking it''s the right judgement. However, I don''t agree with the 15% annual bonus?!?! I would have gone with $50,000/yr for difference in pay, then a 3% average annual inflation.

I agree that an engagement ring can possibly be kept by the woman if the man breaks off the engagement, but salary costs? That''s just too far out there IMHO. I would need A LOT more information here before I agree with this decision 0 i.e. the employment opportunities in the area and how diligently she tried to find a comparable job, etc. And the court *did* rule that he breached a contract, simply by changing his mind about the engagement...whether or not infidelities would not necessarily be put into a newspaper article. The court is sending out the strong message that you cannot change your mind about an engagement without financial consequences - I don''t think we need people to feel trapped in an engagement. I venture to say that the plaintiff was just upset because her engagement was called off and took that anger out on the defendant - I just don''t think that the courts are here to help you take vengence because of your relationship woes. Sounds like she has a lot of maturing to do and needs to stop blaming her ex-FI for her mistake. As for making people think before they propose, how about encouraging women to spend more time thinking about the possible outcomes before uprooting and moving to be with a guy?

You''re working on the assumption that this info did not come out in court. I''m sure it wasn''t a simple ruling and I''m sure lots of evidence was presented.

 

[fieryred33143]

I think its fair to note that she didn't ask for $150K. That was the award that was given to her. She asked for much less.

I don't think that the whole suing an ex-fiance thing is a bright idea. What I do commend her for is standing up for herself, saying that what he did was wrong, and doing something about it. Was the suing extreme? Sure. But at least she did something.

ETA: For Indygirl, $31K in Gainesville is about right. It's a very small college town with no major businesses just UF.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:34:06 PM
Author: blackpolkadot
Life is not about fair. Life is about choices.

And that''s why we have the law.

 

[galeteia]

At first I was shocked, and didn't agree, but then it occurred to me that if he asked her to give up so much and move there to be with him, he should have expressed any misgivings before the move.

If this was a 'let's live together and see how it goes' attitude on his part then it was irresponsible of him to ask her to make such sacrifices if he was having doubts. It sounds like the jury felt that way based on the comment they quoted, so I wonder what kind of evidence was brought forward to support that possibility.

Perhaps this story will impress upon people how serious marriage is from a legal standpoint.

Edit: "I think its fair to note that she didn't ask for $150K. That was the award that was given to her. She asked for much less" -Fireyred

Good point. Also, presumably there was more evidence to be presented than the quickie Judge Judy situations, but because those details weren't included, all we can do is speculate. But something that the jury heard motivated them to award her more than she asked for. I bet it was huge, whatever it was.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:34:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 1:30:40 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

I agree that an engagement ring can possibly be kept by the woman if the man breaks off the engagement, but salary costs? That's just too far out there IMHO. I would need A LOT more information here before I agree with this decision 0 i.e. the employment opportunities in the area and how diligently she tried to find a comparable job, etc. And the court *did* rule that he breached a contract, simply by changing his mind about the engagement...whether or not infidelities would not necessarily be put into a newspaper article. The court is sending out the strong message that you cannot change your mind about an engagement without financial consequences - I don't think we need people to feel trapped in an engagement. I venture to say that the plaintiff was just upset because her engagement was called off and took that anger out on the defendant - I just don't think that the courts are here to help you take vengence because of your relationship woes. Sounds like she has a lot of maturing to do and needs to stop blaming her ex-FI for her mistake. As for making people think before they propose, how about encouraging women to spend more time thinking about the possible outcomes before uprooting and moving to be with a guy?

You're working on the assumption that this info did not come out in court. I'm sure it wasn't a simple ruling and I'm sure lots of evidence was presented.

Right...and that's why I said I would need much more information before agreeing. I would also want to know if he "asked/offered" her to move or if it was HER idea. I don't really think a man calling off an engagement because he doesn't think the marriage will work out is necessarily "wrong."

Actually, I am at work right now (at a firm) so I will look up this case right now in the database for more information. This thread has piqued my interest. I'll be back with details.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:26 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 1:27:28 PM
Author: blackpolkadot
Personally, I think it is ridiculous. She''s the one that said ''yes'' and moved somewhere new AND chose the lower paying job. It''s better he realized they weren''t meant to be before they got married! Think of all the time he saved her.

Good thing he didn''t go through with it though. Imagine if they had gotten married then divorced... no telling what she would sue for then!

Think of all the women that keep their high paying jobs and allow their fiances to quit their jobs in order to focus on school or other issues. They take care of them this entire time and then the guy dumps them after they''ve accomplished what they wanted to do. Do you think that''s fair? I suppose you can say if the woman was stupid enough to support him then yes...but then maybe we''re all stupid for loving and trusting our guys enough to be willing to marry them. Seriously, if I were in her position I''d sue his ass as well.

Depends on if there was ever a promise of repayment...if not, then it''s considered a gift and you''re SOL - live and learn.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:42:10 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:26 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 1:27:28 PM
Author: blackpolkadot
Personally, I think it is ridiculous. She''s the one that said ''yes'' and moved somewhere new AND chose the lower paying job. It''s better he realized they weren''t meant to be before they got married! Think of all the time he saved her.

Good thing he didn''t go through with it though. Imagine if they had gotten married then divorced... no telling what she would sue for then!

Think of all the women that keep their high paying jobs and allow their fiances to quit their jobs in order to focus on school or other issues. They take care of them this entire time and then the guy dumps them after they''ve accomplished what they wanted to do. Do you think that''s fair? I suppose you can say if the woman was stupid enough to support him then yes...but then maybe we''re all stupid for loving and trusting our guys enough to be willing to marry them. Seriously, if I were in her position I''d sue his ass as well.

Depends on if there was ever a promise of repayment...if not, then it''s considered a gift and you''re SOL - live and learn.

And I would argue that the promise to marry, knowing he''d end up with a great job after being able to focus on just school and not have to work (which he would not have been able to do without her), IS a promise of repayment.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 7/25/2008 12:47:23 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Wow! I think the court really messed up here...I feel bad for the girl, but we don''t know the whole story and the jury pretty much said that if someone''s FI moves to be with them and gives up a better job, then they are not allowed to change their mind about marrying their FI without paying the lost wages. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion...what if the plaintiff had gotten a BETTER job when she moved and decided she wanted to break the engagement? Would she have to pay him the difference between her old salary & the new one? I would also prefer not to think about engagements as subject to contract law principles...

Every broken engagement would result in a lawsuit because almost everyone invests (and loses) something with a broken engagement. I agree with the defense counsel here, this case says, ''File frivolous lawsuits.'' The plaintiff should''ve taken into account the possibility of it not working out before uprooting her life and a great job for her FI.

There is no mess up. If you quit your job because you receive a marriage proposal, and you change your life and income to accomodate that upcoming marriage, and the guy actually does make the offer of marriage, well then . . . we are talking about a legally valid lawsuit brought for breach of contract that caused the plaintiff loss of income and hardship.

HUGE lesson to women who will follow some guy anywhere just on the ''promise'' of marriage. Don''t.

 

[MoonWater]

I concur with Holly. Lots of people forget that, religion aside, marriage is a legal binding contract and the promise to do so is and should be also.

 

[dockman3]

I don''t agree with the court at all. Yes, she gave up her job, but it was her choice to do that. This is a RELATIONSHIP, not a contractual agreement. He didn''t force her to move there, she chose to move there and give up her job. Engagements fall apart all the time. Even if it was a messy breakup, he shouldn''t have to pay her anything. She took a gamble on the guy and lost. Plain and simple. That''s life. This is setting a dangerous legal precedent for anybody else that gets engaged. It sends a really strong message to any guys out there that if you break it off, be prepared to pay for it. That''s not right.

What if they weren''t actually engaged? What if she had just given up her job to go be with him and he had broken it off before they were engaged? My gf did that and is living with me now. So if I were to break up with her before we get engaged (which is not going to happen, seeing as I already have the ring

), should I have to pay the difference in her salary?

I guess my question boils down to, where do you draw the line on what is now considered a contract? Is an engagement a verbal contract between two people? What about just a promise ring? What about a really nice gift and talk of getting married, but no actual proposal? I could construe any of these as "contracts" or "commitments", but I think its really dangerous to put any legality on an engagement. If you are going to do that, then you should have to get an engagement license from the government to make it official. That should be the only way it is seen as an actual, binding contract. Obviously, there''s a reason there''s no such thing as an "engagement license" and its because a lot of engagements don''t work out. A lot of marriages don''t work out either, but there are many legal proceedings to handle divorce because marriage is seen as a legally binding contract.

Before I ramble on anymore, I guess I can sum it all up by saying that this is leading down a very bad spiral and I don''t like where its going.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Speaking as someone who spent 650 dollars moving across the state, accepted a lower paying job once I got here, and has no new friends yet or family in the area... I say way to go girl!

My situation is different because I am not engaged, no promise has been made, etc. but I have to say that if BF had broken up with me soon after me moving, then I would have felt misled and cheated. Hello, ya big chicken! Why didn''t you say something before I moved!

I''m all for breaking off an engagement if it''s the right thing to do, but I''m even more for not asking to marry someone unless you''re 100% that you want to marry. Contractually speaking, this man screwed that girl, and I''m glad that he is being held responsible.

If they hadn''t been engaged, like in my case, then I would say it was just a risk she took for love, and a lesson learned. But they were engaged, and she had every reason to believe that her actions were safe.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:43:55 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 1:42:10 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:26 PM
Author: MoonWater

Think of all the women that keep their high paying jobs and allow their fiances to quit their jobs in order to focus on school or other issues. They take care of them this entire time and then the guy dumps them after they've accomplished what they wanted to do. Do you think that's fair? I suppose you can say if the woman was stupid enough to support him then yes...but then maybe we're all stupid for loving and trusting our guys enough to be willing to marry them. Seriously, if I were in her position I'd sue his ass as well.

Depends on if there was ever a promise of repayment...if not, then it's considered a gift and you're SOL - live and learn.

And I would argue that the promise to marry, knowing he'd end up with a great job after being able to focus on just school and not have to work (which he would not have been able to do without her), IS a promise of repayment.

Yes, it could be considered so, but assumptions don't make a legally valid contract. The scenario you stated about paying for someone's schooling is an entirely different issue than the engagement move IMHO. In your scenario the guy would have benefitted from the education/job so it would be fair for him to pay her back if they had any agreement about it. Unless her move helped him gain financially, I don't see where the two situations are comparable. The case has not been published in the database yet, but from what I have found...he broke off the engagement because he found out her financial situation was much worse than he had believed. The article also stated that he had given her an expensive ring and $30,000 to pay off some of her debt. Someone making $81,000/year with that much debt...would've been a red flag for me to begin with anyway. It also stated that the plaintiff alleged infidelity on the man's part...which makes me wonder why SHE wouldn't have called off the engagement...

And HollyS - I wasn't saying that she didn't have a "legally valid" lawsuit and I think she can be free to bring anything she wants, I just think the court erred in its decision...mostly from a policy standpoint, but also some equity. I do agree that both parties in an engagement need to be SMART and not make radical changes in their lives until they are actually married (or have a comparable legal agreement on the books). Funny thing is, if he would've just married her and no-fault divorced her the next day she would have NO case...

ETA: I just saw her clip on the Today Show...I'm sure she'll be getting tons of press for this since "justice" was served.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:47:14 PM
Author: MoonWater
I concur with Holly. Lots of people forget that, religion aside, marriage is a legal binding contract and the promise to do so is and should be also.

I respectfully disagree with this. Until the marriage actually happens, there should be no legal contract. Yes, marriage is legally binding, but the promise do so is just that, a promise, not a legally binding contract. People break promises and circumstances change. If we start making engagements legally binding, then what happens to promise rings or just committed relationships? I just don''t like where this is going, in a legal sense.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:44:07 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 7/25/2008 12:47:23 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Wow! I think the court really messed up here...I feel bad for the girl, but we don''t know the whole story and the jury pretty much said that if someone''s FI moves to be with them and gives up a better job, then they are not allowed to change their mind about marrying their FI without paying the lost wages. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion...what if the plaintiff had gotten a BETTER job when she moved and decided she wanted to break the engagement? Would she have to pay him the difference between her old salary & the new one? I would also prefer not to think about engagements as subject to contract law principles...

Every broken engagement would result in a lawsuit because almost everyone invests (and loses) something with a broken engagement. I agree with the defense counsel here, this case says, ''File frivolous lawsuits.'' The plaintiff should''ve taken into account the possibility of it not working out before uprooting her life and a great job for her FI.

There is no mess up. If you quit your job because you receive a marriage proposal, and you change your life and income to accomodate that upcoming marriage, and the guy actually does make the offer of marriage, well then . . . we are talking about a legally valid lawsuit brought for breach of contract that caused the plaintiff loss of income and hardship.

HUGE lesson to women who will follow some guy anywhere just on the ''promise'' of marriage. Don''t.

Exactly what I was thinking but didn''t quite know how to say! There is a huge difference between moving because you are engaged and just moving for a relationship. Engagement is supposed to be safe. The relationship move is a risk without protection.

 

[sklingem]

Well, I also saw this on that specific case:

"Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom"

Sorry, I agree that leaving a note was not the right way to go, but if I were engaged and found out that my fiancee had hidden debt from me (granted I should have known that before proposing - but can subpoena your GF's credit card report?), I may not want to marry that girl any more either. Especially after having already shelled out $30K for some of her debt?
Goodness, if everybody could sue the other person for a broken engagement (and imagine having to prove that it was the other one's "fault"; we all know here that things are usually MUCH more complicated!!) how messy would it get?? (And how rich would trial lawyers get as well?) It is opening a huge can of worms. BTW - if you get divorced, do you sue your ex-husband/wife for lost income over the past 25 years for careers/opportunities that you may have lost or gained? I don't think so. Bad and unfortunate things happen. We make choices based on the assumptions that some things will work out. Some will not and that is part of LIFE! They should feel glad that it was BEFORE getting married and/or having any children.
VERY frivolous if you ask me.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:56:50 PM
Author: Guilty Pleasure

Date: 7/25/2008 1:44:07 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 7/25/2008 12:47:23 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Wow! I think the court really messed up here...I feel bad for the girl, but we don't know the whole story and the jury pretty much said that if someone's FI moves to be with them and gives up a better job, then they are not allowed to change their mind about marrying their FI without paying the lost wages. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion...what if the plaintiff had gotten a BETTER job when she moved and decided she wanted to break the engagement? Would she have to pay him the difference between her old salary & the new one? I would also prefer not to think about engagements as subject to contract law principles...

Every broken engagement would result in a lawsuit because almost everyone invests (and loses) something with a broken engagement. I agree with the defense counsel here, this case says, 'File frivolous lawsuits.' The plaintiff should've taken into account the possibility of it not working out before uprooting her life and a great job for her FI.

There is no mess up. If you quit your job because you receive a marriage proposal, and you change your life and income to accomodate that upcoming marriage, and the guy actually does make the offer of marriage, well then . . . we are talking about a legally valid lawsuit brought for breach of contract that caused the plaintiff loss of income and hardship.


HUGE lesson to women who will follow some guy anywhere just on the 'promise' of marriage. Don't.

Exactly what I was thinking but didn't quite know how to say! There is a huge difference between moving because you are engaged and just moving for a relationship. Engagement is supposed to be safe. The relationship move is a risk without protection.

Engagement is supposed to be safe, but it legally isn't. Marriage is supposed to be safe, and legally, it is. That's the difference. Until you get a piece of paper or some form of formal contract, then it isn't safe, and an engagement ring is not a legal contract. It is a gift from one party to another with the intention to marry. Intentions are not actions, and until you're married, its still just that, an intention.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:55:46 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 1:47:14 PM
Author: MoonWater
I concur with Holly. Lots of people forget that, religion aside, marriage is a legal binding contract and the promise to do so is and should be also.

I respectfully disagree with this. Until the marriage actually happens, there should be no legal contract. Yes, marriage is legally binding, but the promise do so is just that, a promise, not a legally binding contract. People break promises and circumstances change. If we start making engagements legally binding, then what happens to promise rings or just committed relationships? I just don''t like where this is going, in a legal sense.

I agree with dockman in that it isn''t a legally binding agreement just to promise someone marriage. Breakups happen and engagements shouldn''t be legally binding. What would have happened if she decided not to marry him? Could have have sued her for the time he spent researching for a diamond, finding the perfect setting, the price he paid for the ring?

All of that said, I still say "Go Girl"

The truth is that no matter how ridiculous this whole court case seems to others, you can sue for whatever you want. It’s up to the judgment of the jury to decide whether your case has any merit or not. They did, she won, and hurray for her.

 

[galeteia]

I think it was PS that linked me to an article about diamond rings from the perspective of a woman who felt they were a remnant from the time where it was given to a woman as part of a contract to marry, and that if the man broke off the engagement she was considered 'ruined' (as it was common that the couples would consummate the engagement) and that the man would be on a financial hook. Thus, she didn't agree with diamond e-rings as they used to be used to 'purchase the cow' and she felt that nowadays women have the right to do whatever they want with their 'milk' and the custom was outdated and misogynistic. This lawsuit certainly harkens back quite a ways.

I uprooted from my entire life and gave up the right to work, to leave the country to visit my family, to vote, and agreed to jump through endless red-tape hoops for several years. If I got here and my guy left me for a piece on the side, for example, heads would roll.

I'm very curious to see if IndyGirl can pull up some details.

Edit: Dang this thread moves fast.

Dockman, I think most states do not consider an e-ring as a 'gift' unless it was given on a 'gift' day, i.e. Christmas, her birthday, V-Day, as I have read about engagements dissolving and the guy does not get to keep it because he gave it to her as a 'gift' on a specific day. I believe (and I'm hoping our legal experts jump in here) that some states require that the ring be returned if the engagement is broken regardless of who broke it, in others the woman gets to keep it if it was the man who broke the contract to marry.

So if an e-ring is a 'gift' then she'd always get to keep it, end of story.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:54:32 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:43:55 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 1:42:10 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 1:32:26 PM
Author: MoonWater

Think of all the women that keep their high paying jobs and allow their fiances to quit their jobs in order to focus on school or other issues. They take care of them this entire time and then the guy dumps them after they''ve accomplished what they wanted to do. Do you think that''s fair? I suppose you can say if the woman was stupid enough to support him then yes...but then maybe we''re all stupid for loving and trusting our guys enough to be willing to marry them. Seriously, if I were in her position I''d sue his ass as well.

Depends on if there was ever a promise of repayment...if not, then it''s considered a gift and you''re SOL - live and learn.

And I would argue that the promise to marry, knowing he''d end up with a great job after being able to focus on just school and not have to work (which he would not have been able to do without her), IS a promise of repayment.

Yes, it could be considered so, but assumptions don''t make a legally valid contract. The scenario you stated about paying for someone''s schooling is an entirely different issue than the engagement move IMHO. The case has not been published in the database yet, but from what I have found...he broke off the engagement because he found out her financial situation was much worse than he had believed. The article also stated that he had given her an expensive ring and $30,000 to pay off some of her debt. Someone making $81,000/year with that much debt...would''ve been a red flag for me to begin with anyway. It also stated that the plaintiff alleged infidelity on the man''s part...which makes me wonder why SHE wouldn''t have called off the engagement...

What assumption? You mean assuming you will be married because you were asked and said yes? Er...ok. And I''m not sure what the difference is if an engagement happened in both situations. A woman decides to help her fiance'' under the belief they will be married...a woman moves with fiance'' under the belief they will be married. I think in both sitiuations a woman should have the right to recoup if the guy breaks it off after she made changes which were apart of their contract (engagement).

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 1:49:31 PM
Author: dockman3
I don't agree with the court at all. Yes, she gave up her job, but it was her choice to do that. This is a RELATIONSHIP, not a contractual agreement. He didn't force her to move there, she chose to move there and give up her job. Engagements fall apart all the time. Even if it was a messy breakup, he shouldn't have to pay her anything. She took a gamble on the guy and lost. Plain and simple. That's life. This is setting a dangerous legal precedent for anybody else that gets engaged. It sends a really strong message to any guys out there that if you break it off, be prepared to pay for it. That's not right.

What if they weren't actually engaged? What if she had just given up her job to go be with him and he had broken it off before they were engaged? My gf did that and is living with me now. So if I were to break up with her before we get engaged (which is not going to happen, seeing as I already have the ring

), should I have to pay the difference in her salary?

I guess my question boils down to, where do you draw the line on what is now considered a contract? Is an engagement a verbal contract between two people? What about just a promise ring? What about a really nice gift and talk of getting married, but no actual proposal? I could construe any of these as 'contracts' or 'commitments', but I think its really dangerous to put any legality on an engagement. If you are going to do that, then you should have to get an engagement license from the government to make it official. That should be the only way it is seen as an actual, binding contract. Obviously, there's a reason there's no such thing as an 'engagement license' and its because a lot of engagements don't work out. A lot of marriages don't work out either, but there are many legal proceedings to handle divorce because marriage is seen as a legally binding contract.

Before I ramble on anymore, I guess I can sum it all up by saying that this is leading down a very bad spiral and I don't like where its going.

Sorry, but this doesn't JUST send a message to guys. It sends a message to everyone.

About actually being engaged, this was in the article as well. From the judges mouth, "By the very nature of the action, there must be an actual promise to marry and acceptance of that promise before one can be held liable for a breach," the judge told the jury.
He only had to pay because there was a proposal and an acceptance. You don't have to pay just because someone moves...

And as far as engagament contracts go... maybe they are a good idea for legal reasons, but then they will work just like Prenups. You're only getting it to cover your own butt if it doesn't work out. And how many people with a net worth less than $500,000 get those?