Jilted Bride Sues & Wins

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:04:30 PM
Author: MoonWater

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).

Scroll up and read - I realized my wording was vague and added why *I think* the situations are different. One entails injust enrichment and one does not. The assumption I speak of is whenever ANY woman buys ANYTHING for a man and doesn't take the time to get some form of legal agreement about repayment(watch any judge show anyday of the week and you will see a case like this). It's a CYA thing. In the education example, she is providing for him and paying for his education so he should PAY HER BACK...IMHO there is no "paying back" in this situation because I didn't read anywhere where she paid anything for him, or where he gained anything financially from her move. On the contrary, he helped pay off HER debt.

Galateia - I will continue checking for the entire opinion (assuming it will be published - not all cases are) and will let you know!

Dockman & Rob - I'm in full agreement with you. Very bad policy in an already overly litigious country.

ETA: I bet an appeal is coming and the damages will be *at least* reduced by the appellate judges.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:09:31 PM
Author: 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 and 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?

You''re right, I should have said it sends a message to everyone.

Your point about engagement contracts is exactly what I was getting at. If you want engagement to be a legally binding contract, then you should have the ability to get a pre-engagement contract to cover your butt. It doesn''t matter how much money you make, but if someone is really worried about what they could lose, they could get one. Then I would accept engagement as a legally binding contract, which is almost identically marriage. Last time I checked, marriage and engagement are not the same thing.

 

[sklingem]

On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.
But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:18:10 PM
Author: dockman3

You're right, I should have said it sends a message to everyone.

Your point about engagement contracts is exactly what I was getting at. If you want engagement to be a legally binding contract, then you should have the ability to get a pre-engagement contract to cover your butt. It doesn't matter how much money you make, but if someone is really worried about what they could lose, they could get one. Then I would accept engagement as a legally binding contract, which is almost identically marriage. Last time I checked, marriage and engagement are not the same thing.

I don't think it's that there the same thing... I think it's more that they emulate the same ideal.
Engagement is a promise to marriage, marriage is a promise to death (couldn't come up with anything better

), and if marriage is broken you end up in court. So would go if an engagement breaks (so it seems)

Rob: About being married and not being able to sue for lost wages... I actually think that is an arguement that has been used in divorce hearings. Especially when there is a corporate move by one SO, causing the other to leave a job. And say that party ends up cheating on the SO that quit the job and followed them. I think I've heard of suing for loss wages. Indy can you verify or let me know if I'm way out in left field here??

Your post above about employment... we all sign a mountain of paperwork when we begin jobs that stats that we will not do these exact things. Hence, why marriage had the pre-nup. Companies save their own A**es just like some people feel they need to.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:26:29 PM
Author: rob09
On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.
But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

Verbal contracts have no weight, however, if you could prove in writing that your boss made those promises, I would definitely take it to court. An engagement is more than a verbal promise when a ring is involve. That is the proof that is required (apparently the judge in this case agrees and he wasn't the one deciding, the jury was, he was just giving the rule).

ETA: I wish a contract attorney would chime in because from what I recall reading of contract law, I have no issue with how this case was decided.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:28:21 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 2:18:10 PM

Author: dockman3


You''re right, I should have said it sends a message to everyone.


Your point about engagement contracts is exactly what I was getting at. If you want engagement to be a legally binding contract, then you should have the ability to get a pre-engagement contract to cover your butt. It doesn''t matter how much money you make, but if someone is really worried about what they could lose, they could get one. Then I would accept engagement as a legally binding contract, which is almost identically marriage. Last time I checked, marriage and engagement are not the same thing.

I don''t think it''s that there the same thing... I think it''s more that they emulate the same ideal.

Engagement is a promise to marriage, marriage is a promise to death (couldn''t come up with anything better

), and if marriage is broken you end up in court. So would go if an engagement breaks (so it seems)


Rob: About being married and not being able to sue for lost wages... I actually think that is an arguement that has been used in divorce hearings. Especially when there is a corporate move by one SO, causing the other to leave a job. And say that party ends up cheating on the SO that quit the job and followed them. I think I''ve heard of suing for loss wages. Indy can you verify or let me know if I''m way out in left field here??

The difference being that when you get married, you have to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and you have certain legal rights and privileges. You don''t have those with engagement, and until you do, its not a legally binding contract. That''s why people get married. If engagement was legally binding, they would just stop there and that''d be it. What''s the point of getting married if engagement is already legally binding?

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:35:16 PM
Author: dockman3

The difference being that when you get married, you have to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and you have certain legal rights and privileges. You don't have those with engagement, and until you do, its not a legally binding contract. That's why people get married. If engagement was legally binding, they would just stop there and that'd be it. What's the point of getting married if engagement is already legally binding?

Such a guy response.... DUHHHH, THE WEDDING!!! LOL!!!

ETA: Totally kidding...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:28:21 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 2:18:10 PM
Author: dockman3

You''re right, I should have said it sends a message to everyone.

Your point about engagement contracts is exactly what I was getting at. If you want engagement to be a legally binding contract, then you should have the ability to get a pre-engagement contract to cover your butt. It doesn''t matter how much money you make, but if someone is really worried about what they could lose, they could get one. Then I would accept engagement as a legally binding contract, which is almost identically marriage. Last time I checked, marriage and engagement are not the same thing.

I don''t think it''s that there the same thing... I think it''s more that they emulate the same ideal.
Engagement is a promise to marriage, marriage is a promise to death (couldn''t come up with anything better

), and if marriage is broken you end up in court. So would go if an engagement breaks (so it seems)

Rob: About being married and not being able to sue for lost wages... I actually think that is an arguement that has been used in divorce hearings. Especially when there is a corporate move by one SO, causing the other to leave a job. And say that party ends up cheating on the SO that quit the job and followed them. I think I''ve heard of suing for loss wages. Indy can you verify or let me know if I''m way out in left field here??

Haha - I don''t think ANYONE here is out in left field and hopefully one of the actual attorneys around here can answer you...I was just going on what I thought as far as policy and precedent was concerned (plus my own personal opinion). However, marriage/divorce is a whole different ball of wax than engagements, with specialized rules in place to "protect" both parties so I am unsure. I''m not sure about recovering lost wages in the scenario you gave because it might be looked upon as just a decision the couple made mutually and therefore have to life with, but I think it could play into the calculation of marital wealth and what gets distributed between the couple in favor of the person who left their job.

I did find out another detail about this case - he left a check for $5,000 with the break-up note...talk about classy. I also read somewhere that there was no wedding planning because they were going to the courthouse to do it and he had paid four months rent after the break-up for her but this was from a radio station and so unreliable to me.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 2:26:29 PM

Author: rob09

On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.

But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

Verbal contracts have no weight, however, if you could prove in writing that your boss made those promises, I would definitely take it to court. An engagement is more than a verbal promise when a ring is involve. That is the proof that is required (apparently the judge in this case agrees and he wasn''t the one deciding, the jury was, he was just giving the rule).


ETA: I wish a contract attorney would chime in because from what I recall reading of contract law, I have no issue with how this case was decided.

A ring should not be proof of anything. It is simply a gift from one party to another. It is certainly a big gift, but that''s it. It is not proof of a contract. People give gifts all the time, sometimes even rings. That doesn''t mean she has proof that a verbal contract was made to marry her. All it proves is that the guy loved her enough to buy her a nice ring.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:39:50 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 2:26:29 PM

Author: rob09

On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.

But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

Verbal contracts have no weight, however, if you could prove in writing that your boss made those promises, I would definitely take it to court. An engagement is more than a verbal promise when a ring is involve. That is the proof that is required (apparently the judge in this case agrees and he wasn''t the one deciding, the jury was, he was just giving the rule).


ETA: I wish a contract attorney would chime in because from what I recall reading of contract law, I have no issue with how this case was decided.

A ring should not be proof of anything. It is simply a gift from one party to another. It is certainly a big gift, but that''s it. It is not proof of a contract. People give gifts all the time, sometimes even rings. That doesn''t mean she has proof that a verbal contract was made to marry her. All it proves is that the guy loved her enough to buy her a nice ring.

LOL...I''m sure they can bring in lots of witnesses to attest to their engagement. I mean sure, if they both kept it secret and the guy completely denies proposing and said he simply bought her a nice ring...suuure.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:36:48 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 2:35:16 PM

Author: dockman3


The difference being that when you get married, you have to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and you have certain legal rights and privileges. You don''t have those with engagement, and until you do, its not a legally binding contract. That''s why people get married. If engagement was legally binding, they would just stop there and that''d be it. What''s the point of getting married if engagement is already legally binding?

Such a guy response.... DUHHHH, THE WEDDING!!! LOL!!!

ETA: Totally kidding...

Hahaha.

 

[Pushin40]

I think this is ridiculous and sets yet another precedent for a man to be held down by the system.

He changed his mind.

What if she is a royal B*tch and HORRIBLE to live with? What about him, and his recourse?

It was her choice to move to be with him - this is not a "contract". Period.

I''m tellin'' ya - people are just nasty.....

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:35:16 PM
Author: dockman3
The difference being that when you get married, you have to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and you have certain legal rights and privileges. You don't have those with engagement, and until you do, its not a legally binding contract. That's why people get married. If engagement was legally binding, they would just stop there and that'd be it. What's the point of getting married if engagement is already legally binding?

I think the engagement, with ring to indicate a promise to marry in 'good faith', can be viewed as a contract to get married. Marriage, on the other hand, is a much more complex contract.

This is a bit tangential, but as far as the US government is concerned, because we declared ourselves 'engaged' and filed for a fiance visa, if I had arrived here and my guy decided not to marry me after all, I would be permitted to file for legal residency despite not following through with the marriage because I had entered the engagement, and country, in 'good faith'.

*Inhales deeply*

Ah, nothing like the crispy scent of healthy, non-acrimonious, articulate debate on PS in the morning.

Edit: Even a quick google search confirms an engagement ring is NOT a 'gift', it is 'conditional' and even Wikipedia states that "It represents a formal agreement to future marriage" and quotes legal examples of the ring not being just a 'gift'.

Does anyone have JSTOR membership? My guy is out and I'm hankering to hear what "Gift: On Condition: Engagement Ring: Right to Return of Ring" has to say beyond "[...]that it was not a gift in a strict legal sense" and can't access it.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:39:50 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 2:26:29 PM

Author: rob09

On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.

But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

Verbal contracts have no weight, however, if you could prove in writing that your boss made those promises, I would definitely take it to court. An engagement is more than a verbal promise when a ring is involve. That is the proof that is required (apparently the judge in this case agrees and he wasn''t the one deciding, the jury was, he was just giving the rule).


ETA: I wish a contract attorney would chime in because from what I recall reading of contract law, I have no issue with how this case was decided.

A ring should not be proof of anything. It is simply a gift from one party to another. It is certainly a big gift, but that''s it. It is not proof of a contract. People give gifts all the time, sometimes even rings. That doesn''t mean she has proof that a verbal contract was made to marry her. All it proves is that the guy loved her enough to buy her a nice ring.

Oh I’m sorry but I don’t agree with that at all.

If a man gives a woman a ring as a gift, that’s one thing. But as soon as you tack on the “will you marry me” it isn’t a gift anymore. It’s a symbol that there is a future marriage, pending the legal paperwork. Whether or not it was a verbal legally binding contract is still up in the air but it certainly not as nonchalant as a regular gift.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:33:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 7/25/2008 2:26:29 PM
Author: rob09
On a similar note: If your employer verbally promises you that you would get a raise in the future (that is no different than a promise to marry) but in the end you do not get it/you get fired/you forego other higher-paying employement opportunities, would you sue your boss for breach of (verbal) contract??? And get the difference in pay that you were initially promised? Would that stand up in court? I doubt it. Is it fair? No.
But is it gounds for suing someone? I do not think so.

Verbal contracts have no weight, however, if you could prove in writing that your boss made those promises, I would definitely take it to court. An engagement is more than a verbal promise when a ring is involve. That is the proof that is required (apparently the judge in this case agrees and he wasn't the one deciding, the jury was, he was just giving the rule).

ETA: I wish a contract attorney would chime in because from what I recall reading of contract law, I have no issue with how this case was decided.

From my contracts class, she has an argument for promissory estoppel if there was no "real" contract - I just don't think the court got it right for policy reasons.

ETA: If this precedent holds up, which I'm 99% sure it won't with the current award amount, what if he bought a house after he proposed because he thought they were getting married and then SHE called it off. Would you think she needs to pay for half the house?

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:41:48 PM
Author: MoonWater

LOL...I'm sure they can bring in lots of witnesses to attest to their engagement. I mean sure, if they both kept it secret and the guy completely denies proposing and said he simply bought her a nice ring...suuure.

Yeah, I'm sure they can. That still doesn't mean its a binding verbal contract. All they guy said was "Will you marry me" and she said "yes". Where in there did he promise to marry her? He asked if should would, but never said he would.

We can sit here and play word games like this all day though. What he implied vs what she thought he meant and so on. In the end, the case was already decided and the precedent has been set. We're not (at least I'm not) lawyers, and we weren't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence. I guess we'll just have to wait until it goes to the appellate court and see what they say.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:43:43 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 7/25/2008 2:35:16 PM

Author: dockman3

The difference being that when you get married, you have to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and you have certain legal rights and privileges. You don''t have those with engagement, and until you do, its not a legally binding contract. That''s why people get married. If engagement was legally binding, they would just stop there and that''d be it. What''s the point of getting married if engagement is already legally binding?

I think the engagement, with ring to indicate a promise to marry in ''good faith'', can be viewed as a contract to get married. Marriage, on the other hand, is a much more complex contract.


This is a bit tangential, but as far as the US government is concerned, because we declared ourselves ''engaged'' and filed for a fiance visa, if I had arrived here and my guy decided not to marry me after all, I would be permitted to file for legal residency despite not following through with the marriage because I had entered the engagement, and country, in ''good faith''.


*Inhales deeply*


Ah, nothing like the crispy scent of healthy, non-acrimonious, articulate debate on PS in the morning.

That''s really interesting. I didn''t know about the "fiance visas". That does change things a little bit. I''ll have to think about this for a little bit...

 

[sklingem]

For a thorough legal discussion of what the engagement ring means see:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E2120B2B-1C65-4E77-92A0ADC4FA3EDC2A/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/ART/

Basically it all depends on the jurisdiction, judges etc., so there is no clear answer, only what happens in the majority of all cases. Of course that does not solve the case here at hand that goes way beyond the question of who gets to keep an engagement ring after a break-up!

 

[kittybean]

Haha, this thread could not have come at a more perfect time. I just took a break from studying family law (bar exam is on Tuesday!!!) to check out PS, and what is the first thing I see? A family law case!

I don''t have time to read the case, but it seems as if, regardless of whether there was a written contract, promissory estoppel could be applied to give her the damages based on her reasonable reliance on his promise, his knowledge that his promise would induce reasonable reliance, and her actual damages. If I were on the jury, I would say she gets only the engagement ring as "liquidated damages," essentially, but I haven''t examined the case at all.

There used to be statutes called "heart balm" statutes that allowed damages to the jilted party. They don''t exist on the books anymore, but I love how the legal system believes that money can make anyone "whole" no matter their injury. I understand there really isn''t a better way in most cases, but even after three years of legal indoctrination, I am still taken aback sometimes at the system putting a dollar value on everything...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:49:37 PM
Author: rob09
For a thorough legal discussion of what the engagement ring means see:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E2120B2B-1C65-4E77-92A0ADC4FA3EDC2A/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/ART/

Basically it all depends on the jurisdiction, judges etc., so there is no clear answer, only what happens in the majority of all cases. Of course that does not solve the case here at hand that goes way beyond the question of who gets to keep an engagement ring after a break-up!

Good point, Rob. Other courts might have thrown this case out before it ever got to the jury. States hold the power in these types of matters, after all.

Galateia - I love a good, educated debate as well!

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:45:03 PM
Author: fieryred33143

Oh I’m sorry but I don’t agree with that at all.

If a man gives a woman a ring as a gift, that’s one thing. But as soon as you tack on the “will you marry me” it isn’t a gift anymore. It’s a symbol that there is a future marriage, pending the legal paperwork. Whether or not it was a verbal legally binding contract is still up in the air but it certainly not as nonchalant as a regular gift.

Ok, ok. I did stretch that a bit far, but I still think its not evidence of a contract. Its a symbol of his love and affection and while the intention will be to marry, it is still a gift. Granted, its not a regular run-of-the-mill gift, but its still just a gift. What would you call it if its not a gift?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:53:35 PM
Author: kittybean
Haha, this thread could not have come at a more perfect time. I just took a break from studying family law (bar exam is on Tuesday!!!) to check out PS, and what is the first thing I see? A family law case!

I don''t have time to read the case, but it seems as if, regardless of whether there was a written contract, promissory estoppel could be applied to give her the damages based on her reasonable reliance on his promise, his knowledge that his promise would induce reasonable reliance, and her actual damages. If I were on the jury, I would say she gets only the engagement ring as ''liquidated damages,'' essentially, but I haven''t examined the case at all.

There used to be statutes called ''heart balm'' statutes that allowed damages to the jilted party. They don''t exist on the books anymore, but I love how the legal system believes that money can make anyone ''whole'' no matter their injury. I understand there really isn''t a better way in most cases, but even after three years of legal indoctrination, I am still taken aback sometimes at the system putting a dollar value on everything...

Haha - great! You probably know a lot more about this topic then! One of the articles talking about the case referred to ti specifically as a "heart balm" case so it''s funny you mention those old statutes. I wonder if he can ask for his $30,000 back - I''m sure he paid it in anticipation of them combining their assets in marriage - maybe it should be deducted from the award amount. Also, anyone have thoughts on my "house" analogy?

 

[Lauren8211]

I''m just annoyed at the entire situation. Break-ups should not be in the courts, and to me, a broken engagement is a glorified break-up. Marriage protects you legally, engagement doesnt, and it''s unfortunate that we''ve now decided that engagement entitles you to rights, when marriage was put in place for that reason.

People need to make better decisions, and make sure their interests are protected. Even though some case law is starting to suggest that a ring is a "contract," I disagree. Marriage is a contract.

I may not be right, but thats how I feel.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:46:01 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
If this precedent holds up, which I''m 99% sure it won''t with the current award amount, what if he bought a house after he proposed because he thought they were getting married and then SHE called it off. Would you think she needs to pay for half the house?

Interesting. It''s a *bit* different because he would still *have* the house (as well as the liability of the house i.e. mortgage). But the upfront costs of the house ... closing costs ... maybe!

As intriguing as the legalities of engagement vs. marriage are ... I think what always frustrates me about these cases is how much women tend to give up for love or the promise of love. Is it that we are so much more eager for it? More trusting? More naive? Or do we *still* buy into to those societal norms about who''s job is more important ... which sex does the sacrificing.

Its hitting me hard today as I ponder even a (very, very) vague possibility of moving across the country for my DH''s career. And *I''m* MARRIED. But there''s an enormous part of my ego that is ruffled by a potential huge self-sacrifice & *personal* risk vs. potential *family* upside gain. Yeesh.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:54:24 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 2:45:03 PM
Author: fieryred33143

Oh I’m sorry but I don’t agree with that at all.

If a man gives a woman a ring as a gift, that’s one thing. But as soon as you tack on the “will you marry me” it isn’t a gift anymore. It’s a symbol that there is a future marriage, pending the legal paperwork. Whether or not it was a verbal legally binding contract is still up in the air but it certainly not as nonchalant as a regular gift.

Ok, ok. I did stretch that a bit far, but I still think its not evidence of a contract. Its a symbol of his love and affection and while the intention will be to marry, it is still a gift. Granted, its not a regular run-of-the-mill gift, but its still just a gift. What would you call it if its not a gift?

I would call it my weapon to go wedding planning crazy

I can see it from that point of view especially since you can technically get engaged without the ring.

 

[littlelysser]

Okay. Here are my thoughts on this.

Two people can enter into a BINDING verbal contract - so long as there is an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration.

Before I get too law school on everyone...consideration basically means each party is giving something up or doing something for the other party.

For example...if my my dad said that he would give me $20 to mow the lawn and I said yes, I'll do it for 20 bucks - voila - contract. Doesn't need to be written down. In fact, only certain contracts do. If I mowed the lawn and my dad didn't pay - well, I could sue him!

Now, consideration can be something as minimal as a penny. However, if my dad asked me to mow the lawn, and offered no money or anything and I said yes and didn't do it - well he can't sue me because there was no consideration.

Now, for fun, assuming my dad and I entered into the contract and BEFORE I mowed the lawn I went out and spent $15 on ice cream of anticipated lawn money and my dad tried to cancel the contract he would be estopped from doing it, because I did something in RELIANCE on that promise.

It looks like that is what we've got here. If dude promised to marry lady if she moved and took the crappy job (consideration on both sides...he's giving her a ring, she's moving) and then he broke his word to her...well, she pretty much got screwed in reliance on that promise to marry.

Does that make sense?

Now, there are lots of issues about love, ability to change one's mind...but two people can contract to do anything - even marry. And the law doesn't give on good crap about the terms of that contract...so long as it isn't dealing with anything illegal.

Just my .02.

 

[sklingem]

"Edit: Even a quick google search confirms an engagement ring is NOT a ''gift'', it is ''conditional'' and even Wikipedia states that "It represents a formal agreement to future marriage" and quotes legal examples of the ring not being just a ''gift''."

Yes and no - it is conditional, but a "conditional gift" for some judges:

"But the majority of courts also consider such a gift to be a conditional one. That means that, until some future event occurs, the gift isn''t final; if that event does not occur, then the donor has the right to get the gift back"

And wikepdia says the same: "See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called ''modern trend'' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was ''at fault,'' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."

But some courts apply the "(at) fault rule", with different consequences:
"Some courts applying this fault-based rule consider the exchange of the ring to be more like a contract than a conditional gift: The ring is just a symbol of the agreement to marry. If that agreement is not performed, then those involved should be restored to their former positions -- as they would be if the contract was for, say, the delivery of a bushel of wheat -- and the ring should be returned to the person who first had it. But if the donor backs out, the donee should keep the ring, because a person who breaches contracts should not be rewarded for doing so. Spinnell v. Quigley, 785 P.2d 1149 (1990)"

Complicated ...

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:54:24 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 2:45:03 PM

Author: fieryred33143

Oh I’m sorry but I don’t agree with that at all.

If a man gives a woman a ring as a gift, that’s one thing. But as soon as you tack on the “will you marry me” it isn’t a gift anymore. It’s a symbol that there is a future marriage, pending the legal paperwork. Whether or not it was a verbal legally binding contract is still up in the air but it certainly not as nonchalant as a regular gift.

Ok, ok. I did stretch that a bit far, but I still think its not evidence of a contract. Its a symbol of his love and affection and while the intention will be to marry, it is still a gift. Granted, its not a regular run-of-the-mill gift, but its still just a gift. What would you call it if its not a gift?

According to the link Rob posted, in the majority of states it''s a ''conditional'' gift, meaning if the conditions are not fufilled, in some cases the recipent must return it.

Since you expressed interest in the fiance visa situation, another thing I should add is that my guy and I had to submit (on two occasions) letters stating that we were legally able to and willing (aka engaged) to marry, and would do so within 90 days of me activating the visa. Now that is a contract to get married!

Just had another thought; let''s presume that a couple is in a no-fault state where the ring must be returned. What happens if the woman contributed financially to the ring, as Gwendolyn is? Can the ring be considered a ''gift'' if the wearer (in part) purchased it?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:04:56 PM
Author: littlelysser
Okay. Here are my thoughts on this.

Two people can enter into a BINDING verbal contract - so long as there is an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration.

Before I get too law school on everyone...consideration basically means each party is giving something up or doing something for the other party.

For example...if my my dad said that he would give me $20 to mow the lawn and I said yes, I''ll do it for 20 bucks - voila - contract. Doesn''t need to be written down. In fact, only certain contracts do. If I mowed the lawn and my dad didn''t pay - well, I could sue him!

Now, consideration can be something as minimal as a penny. However, if my dad said mow the lawn and I said yes and didn''t do it - well he can''t sue me because there was no consideration.

Now, for fun, assuming my dad and I entered into the contract and BEFORE I mowed the lawn I went out and spent $15 on ice cream of anticipated lawn money and my dad tried to cancel the contract he would be estopped from doing it, because I did something in RELIANCE on that promise.

It looks like that is what we''ve got here. If dude promised to marry lady if she moved and took the crappy job (consideration on both sides...he''s giving her a ring, she''s moving) and then he broke his word to her...well, she pretty much got screwed in reliance on that promise to marry.

Does that make sense?

Now, there are lots of issues about love, ability to change one''s mind...but two people can contract to do anything - even marry. And the law doesn''t give on good crap about the terms of that contract...so long as it isn''t dealing with anything illegal.

Just my .02.

Thanks for your post. I could not for the life of me remember the details of what I read. I just knew based on what I studied, this decision didn''t bother me.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:01:03 PM
Author: decodelighted

Interesting. It's a *bit* different because he would still *have* the house (as well as the liability of the house i.e. mortgage). But the upfront costs of the house ... closing costs ... maybe!

As intriguing as the legalities of engagement vs. marriage are ... I think what always frustrates me about these cases is how much women tend to give up for love or the promise of love. Is it that we are so much more eager for it? More trusting? More naive? Or do we *still* buy into to those societal norms about who's job is more important ... which sex does the sacrificing.

Its hitting me hard today as I ponder even a (very, very) vague possibility of moving across the country for my DH's career. And *I'm* MARRIED. But there's an enormous part of my ego that is ruffled by a potential huge self-sacrifice & *personal* risk vs. potential *family* upside gain. Yeesh.

I see your point...maybe she would have to pay half the downpayment or any money he would lose from selling the house. I still think it's odd that if he would've just married her and then divorced her the next day there would be no case at all. I think many women nowadays are VERY overeager for "love" in their lives - the women on those judge shows really make me sad and I hope they learn their lesson after the show, but I know many probably don't. I will most likely be making more than my FF when we get married, and the VP of his company actually asked him yesterday if it will bother him. I thought it was weird that he would even ask that - no one would think twice if it was the other way around and ask me if I was bothered by his higher income. Very messed up in this day and age.

ETA: I think he was screwed when he gave her $30,000 and found out she had much more debt to come! My ASSUMPTION is that she moved to be with him because she thought he could provide for her (i.e. big bling, $30,000, trips, etc.) - otherwise the plaintiff was not very wise in quitting her $81,000/year job when she has that much debt.

Lysser - Yeah, I saw a promissory estoppel argument too...I just don't agree on policy reasons aka opening the floodgates and what not.

People might see this and begin suing for anything they do in anticipation of a marriage that never happens. I guess I should stop complaining and encourage these types of lawsuits - I'll never be out of a job!