Jilted Bride Sues & Wins

[littlelysser]

Sorry I had to bail out. Had to go pick DH up from work. Considering that I am an unemployed former lawyer being totally supported by DH, I figure picking him up from work is darn near the least I could do.

In my whole discussion of the case, I never really stated my opinion on what the court did. Honestly, I'm not sure, and I think a good argument could be made that what the court did was right (morally and ethically, not just legally) and that the court was way way off base. Interesting issue for sure.

Oh, and one aside to what Freke said - the right to 1/2 of the monies earned during a marriage (subject to some exceptions) doesn't arise from the fact that Jane supported Bob - there are statutes in most states which dictate the division of marital property and assets and they require a split of the monies earned during the marriage, regardless of whether the Jane supported Bill while he got his MBA.

The thing that I find just AWFUL is the sitation where one spouse supports another through medical school or law school or whatever...and immediately (or darn close) Dr.Spouse divorces supportive spouse...and the supportive spouse is really left with nothing. A medical degree that hasn't been put to use yet isn't of any real value...just stinks.

 

[HollyS]

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.

But that isn''t what the law in that state says. Our opinions about whether it is or is not a contract are invalid.

I took contract law while studying to be a paralegal. It is a contractural agreement in many states. Sometimes you need actual evidence to support that claim; sometimes you just need to prove the intent was there.

 

[HollyS]

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.

In actuality, it can and will go to court. I was the foreman on a federal jury for just such a case. The plaintiff lost because he did not have a real case -- in this case -- but these cases do go to court. All the time.

 

[Rhea]

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

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''.

I didn''t know that!! My finance''s visa to the UK was conditional. We had to get married before I could apply for the next visa and be able to work.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/25/2008 7:45:33 PM
Author: Addy

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

Author: Galateia


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''.

I didn''t know that!! My finance''s visa to the UK was conditional. We had to get married before I could apply for the next visa and be able to work.

That''s still the case for us, seeing as we did get legally married and I am filing for residence and permission to work as the spouse of a US citizen.

Disclaimer: I think that''s something you''re allowed to do, but anyone wanting to know for sure had best consult an immigration lawyer. I know that you''re covered under VAWA to help you file on your own if your spouse abuses you, etc. Anyhoo, massive threadjack over.


Freke, that was an interesting (and new!) point you brought up about the possible damage to her career. In that light, the damages awarded to her are not that outrageous.

 

[Rhea]

I only got through the first two pages of this thread.

I can''t imagine being sued. To continue our relationship one of us had to quit our job and move to another country. Talk about loss of income! It''s a big leap, but it''s life. It would have been horrible beyond belief if it had gone wrong. I had regular nightmares about my now DH dying when I wasn''t permanently here and had no recourse to his life insurance to help cover me.

I think that you have to do what''s best and protect yourself as much as possible whilst still living your life. Her ex-fiance protected himself, supposedly, by leaving the relationship when he found out she had substantial debt. I would have probably done the same thing. He saved them both heartache by not getting married if he knew it wasn''t the right thing to do.

On PS we always seem to tell people to take marriage seriously, but also that there is an out if they need it. For whatever reason he didn''t see the relationship working out in the future. What should he have done to avoid getting sued? Gotten married, avoided having children or buying property and told her in five years he was never that into her? Not made plans to live with her until they were married and her debt was his as well making it too late?

I think cases like this have the potential to allow for more cases of a simple relationship gone wrong. No one is perfect. She should have admitted her debt. He should have voiced any concerns that he knew of before she moved (if it really was down to her debt and he didn''t know about it...). No one person is innocent in the fall of a relationship like this and to award money based on it just seems wrong.

 

[MoonWater]

I think to avoid getting sued he could have left the relationship in a way that did not involve only a note and a check. I don't understand why he couldn't just talk to this woman. I mean, marriage IS serious and if you proposed to someone and you found out they did something you didn't agree with, would you simply walk away (abuse excluded, always a reason to just walk away). Why didn't he talk to her about it?

 

[bobbin]

I haven't read ALL of the posts, so I apologise if I have repeated something someone else has already said.

In Australia, I don't believe that this would have ever held up in court.

What another poster said about a contract needing offer, acceptance and consideration is true, except in Australia (not sure about America) there also needs to be an intention to create legal relations (intention for it to be legally binding). In all commercial transactions, this is assumed and you need to rebut it if you disagree that it was present. However, in family and spouse situations, it is the revers, there is an assumption that there is no intention to create legal relations and that it is simply an informal agreement.

An engagement would seem to be one of these situations to me. Marriage is different, there are signed documents clearly stating that the agreement is legally binding.

There could also be an issue with consideration here. If you are stating that a ring is consideration on the man's behalf, what consideration is the woman providing? If you say herself in marriage, thats yet again seeming a bit like the cow reference of before. I don't have so much of a problem with it if the ring is seen as a gift and if there has to be consideration, then the consideration is both parties promising themselves to each other.

 

[princesss]

Not much to add, but I wanted to say that this has been a fascinating read.

 

[littlelysser]

Bobbins - Good Points!

I actually realized my error with the consideration I stated and I corrected it. Their consideration in this case is "giving up" seeing other people and committing to one another. I'm basing this on the fact that in US contract law, one party agreeing to give up smoking in exchange for a monetary reward could be consideration. So I totally agree with you on that one. I took contracts 10 years ago...the mind gets a bit rusty!

As for your second point - Intent is a requirement here too. I'm not familiar with the term "legal relations," I don't think it used in US contract law. However, "a meeting of the minds" is required in US contract law. I believe that in an engagement situation, where there is neither fraud or deceit, it'd be darn near impossible to argue that there wasn't a meeting of the minds.

Interestingly, I don't believe there is any difference in the presumption dependent upon the nature of the contract. I could be wrong. It is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it would apply practically.

 

[Anna0499]

Sorry I had to bail too! I got off work and drove home for the weekend. I really like these types of threads! I love the active "engagement" of ideas in this thread...really helps me with my critical thinking and how I would pursue/defend this case. Thanks for the encouragement lysser! I am working at a firm this summer and I have already dealt with some HORRIBLE attorneys - it''s actually really encouraging!

I wonder if he asked for the $30,000 he paid into her credit debt to be deducted from the verdict...especially if he did it on RELIANCE of their upcoming nuptials. The scenario where one spouse supports another through professional school seems a bit different - mostly because in that case one party is clearly benefitting at the other''s expense. This is all speculation until the case is published, but I wonder how he benefitted from her moving there - what if she moved of her own volition so that he could continue paying off her debts, and took the lower paying job because she knew he had money. When he broke off the engagement she realized she had a ton of debt and needed to get money somewhere...*ding*ding* lawsuit. It really matters to me what her motives were in moving, and what was exactly said concerning the move, especially because actual words and actions are key in contract cases. Also, if she had planned on quitting her job had the marriage happened anyway, it seems kind of weird to me that she gets repayment for something she expected to happen (and his income would''ve probably been the larger one in the marriage).

I''m not saying she didn''t have a case, nor am I trying to argue the principles of contract law, I just don''t agree with the opinion on policy grounds and believe the court could''ve also invoked some sort of equity powers here. Courts often take into account whether a certain scenario is prevalent (as in this case) or rare (i.e. freak accident) before determining how to rule because it will have very real effects on the types of cases that get filed from here on out. I am very interested in how the appellate court will rule, assuming they take the case. As for how he ended things being the reason he was sued - there''s no law against being a jerk...apparently, the court thinks he should''ve just went ahead and married her and then filed for divorce the next day...then no case at all. I think there was a "meeting of the minds" as far as the proposal and acceptance TO MARRY is concerned, but I don''t think he intended to make himself legally bound to compensate her for any expenses she would ever incur because she thought she would be his wife someday. I agree with Dockman here in that I don''t know where we would draw the line for expenses and how you would put a price tag on everything lost.

Meresal - My mistake on the 15%...I do think that''s high for a raise too though. I think the appellate court will reduce her award accordingly...I wonder where they got 15%?

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 10:49:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Sorry I had to bail too! I got off work and drove home for the weekend. I really like these types of threads! I love the active ''engagement'' of ideas in this thread...really helps me with my critical thinking and how I would pursue/defend this case. Thanks for the encouragement lysser! I am working at a firm this summer and I have already dealt with some HORRIBLE attorneys - it''s actually really encouraging!

I wonder if he asked for the $30,000 he paid into her credit debt to be deducted from the verdict...especially if he did it on RELIANCE of their upcoming nuptials. The scenario where one spouse supports another through professional school seems a bit different - mostly because in that case one party is clearly benefitting at the other''s expense. This is all speculation until the case is published, but I wonder how he benefitted from her moving there - what if she moved of her own volition so that he could continue paying off her debts, and took the lower paying job because she knew he had money. When he broke off the engagement she realized she had a ton of debt and needed to get money somewhere...*ding*ding* lawsuit. It really matters to me what her motives were in moving, and what was exactly said concerning the move, especially because actual words and actions are key in contract cases. Also, if she had planned on quitting her job had the marriage happened anyway, it seems kind of weird to me that she gets repayment for something she expected to happen (and his income would''ve probably been the larger one in the marriage).


I''m not saying she didn''t have a case, nor am I trying to argue the principles of contract law, I just don''t agree with the opinion on policy grounds and believe the court could''ve also invoked some sort of equity powers here. Courts often take into account whether a certain scenario is prevalent (as in this case) or rare (i.e. freak accident) before determining how to rule because it will have very real effects on the types of cases that get filed from here on out. I am very interested in how the appellate court will rule, assuming they take the case. As for how he ended things being the reason he was sued - there''s no law against being a jerk...apparently, the court thinks he should''ve just went ahead and married her and then filed for divorce the next day...then no case at all. I think there was a ''meeting of the minds'' as far as the proposal and acceptance TO MARRY is concerned, but I don''t think he intended to make himself legally bound to compensate her for any expenses she would ever incur because she thought she would be his wife someday. I agree with Dockman here in that I don''t know where we would draw the line for expenses and how you would put a price tag on everything lost.

I''ve really enjoyed this thread too! Good stuffs for sure!

Now, one thing I''ll say regarding the notion that she could get money for every expense she incurred in reliance on this promise, that isn''t the case. She would only be allowed the reasonable expenses, correct? Apparently to the court the move was a reasonable expense...if that makes sense. But I do understand your point.

As for the 30k he paid for her CCs...well, again, he breached the agreement...so does he have a right to those damages? According to K law, I don''t think he does. Maybe this would have been the place to make an equity agreement? I don''t know.

I totally see what you are saying regarding equity, but the courts really rarely invoke it...and in fairness to the court - the attorney for the Jilter may not have argued it, ya know? A court can only respond to defenses/arguments that are actually raised. Ok, I officially really want to see a copy of this case if it hits westlaw. My guess is that they''ll publish it somewhere...even if it isn''t officially published. I WILL FIND IT!

The more I think about it...I wouldn''t be surprised if the case is not officially published (in my court it was up to the individual judge whether to make an opinion a published opinion). A case that isn''t published is of MINIMAL precedential value...might be one way of making the whole thing go away, at least in terms of the impact it might have on the contract/engagement landscape.

[Threadjack]
Indy - I will never forget my first experience in a court room. One of my professors represented the group of congressmen that sued president Clinton for violating the War Powers Clause and the War Powers Resolution for his action in Kosovo. He sued in federal court, of course, and got bounced out on almost every imaginable ground (mootness, political question, standing). Well the DC circuit granted his appeal and we went to watch the argument before the DC Circuit. My prof. was AMAZING. The judges were AMAZING. The guy from the DOJ was pretty good...they were arguing about the meaning of FOOTNOTES in USSC cases. It was incredible. Esoteric, awe-inspiring. A wonderful experience...however, it totally scarred me! I was TERRIFIED to go to court for the first time as a lawyer and not an observer...finally one of the partners I worked with MADE me go see how it really is for most lawyers...let me tell you, there was no discussion of footnotes at the Friday afternoon Motions Court! It has always been interesting to me that law can be so challenging and incredible and intellectual - but you can also earn a nice living defending DUIs. Just a weird thing about the law.

annnnnnd [/Threadjack.]

 

[decodelighted]

OMG. My eyes crossed a while back! I *still* can''t figure out how I feel about this but here''s what I knows: MAI BRAINS IZ HURTIN WHIFF DUMMNESSS.

Another thing I know: Never would have hacked it in law school. So at least there''s that objective truth.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:01:36 AM
Author: littlelysser

I've really enjoyed this thread too! Good stuffs for sure!

Now, one thing I'll say regarding the notion that she could get money for every expense she incurred in reliance on this promise, that isn't the case. She would only be allowed the reasonable expenses, correct? Apparently to the court the move was a reasonable expense...if that makes sense. But I do understand your point.

As for the 30k he paid for her CCs...well, again, he breached the agreement...so does he have a right to those damages? According to K law, I don't think he does. Maybe this would have been the place to make an equity agreement? I don't know.

I totally see what you are saying regarding equity, but the courts really rarely invoke it...and in fairness to the court - the attorney for the Jilter may not have argued it, ya know? A court can only respond to defenses/arguments that are actually raised. Ok, I officially really want to see a copy of this case if it hits westlaw. My guess is that they'll publish it somewhere...even if it isn't officially published. I WILL FIND IT!

The more I think about it...I wouldn't be surprised if the case is not officially published (in my court it was up to the individual judge whether to make an opinion a published opinion). A case that isn't published is of MINIMAL precedential value...might be one way of making the whole thing go away, at least in terms of the impact it might have on the contract/engagement landscape.

[Threadjack]
Indy - I will never forget my first experience in a court room. One of my professors represented the group of congressmen that sued president Clinton for violating the War Powers Clause and the War Powers Resolution for his action in Kosovo. He sued in federal court, of course, and got bounced out on almost every imaginable ground (mootness, political question, standing). Well the DC circuit granted his appeal and we went to watch the argument before the DC Circuit. My prof. was AMAZING. The judges were AMAZING. The guy from the DOJ was pretty good...they were arguing about the meaning of FOOTNOTES in USSC cases. It was incredible. Esoteric, awe-inspiring. A wonderful experience...however, it totally scarred me! I was TERRIFIED to go to court for the first time as a lawyer and not an observer...finally one of the partners I worked with MADE me go see how it really is for most lawyers...let me tell you, there was no discussion of footnotes at the Friday afternoon Motions Court! It has always been interesting to me that law can be so challenging and incredible and intellectual - but you can also earn a nice living defending DUIs. Just a weird thing about the law.

annnnnnd [/Threadjack.]

Yeah, I don't think he could've independently sued for the $30,000, but I would hope his attorney would argue unjust enrichment in that case...as in she shouldn't have benefitted from something he did in reliance. I wonder why the court didn't award any moving expenses - I would think those would be more "reasonably expected" under PE than the salary thing...doesn't sound like they even presented the PE argument from the article though. I would *love* to have been working on this case! I guess this thread, if nothing else, will make all the men around PS very careful about proposing just in case. Even if it's not officially published in a reporter, Westlaw has some unpublished cases on there, so I will keep checking and definitely revisit with any juicy details if I find it!

I also think this guy has a good case for appeal, so hopefully that will be published too.

**threadjack**

I've been to court several times, but never in a *big* case (landlord/tenant, criminal, domestic violence). I am working on a case against Chrysler and another against CVS though, so I secretly hope they go to trial (which they most likely won't because the corporations don't want to in these cases because they are in the wrong and there are serious injuries involved) so I can go to federal court! The highest I've been thus far is the IN Supreme Court. Con law freaks me out - I couldn't imagine being an attorney on a case like that anytime soon in my career. My concentration is in Health Law though, so I probably won't come up against too many "big-time" constitutional questions, although of course everything relates back to the Constitution. I also had a HORRIBLE Con Law professor, so that probably contributes to it.

ETA: Note to all PSers - make sure you hire COMPETENT attorneys with EXPERIENCE in what your case concerns!

 

[Kaleigh]

There are no guarantees in life, we all make choices and have to live by them. She gave up the job, because she wanted to be with him. Knew the market in said location was a lot less. Thus taking a big pay cut to be with her beloved.
So it didn't work out. Life doesn't always work the way we want it. I hate this litigious society we live in. Ughh,.

I admit I didn't read the whole thread, so if this point was made before, or I missed some key points, forgive me.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

I believe the 15k was the bonus, not a raise. Depending on her job, a 15 k bonus, or even a raise for that matter, would not be unheard of. What if she would have been up for partner the next year?

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:43:39 AM
Author: Kaleigh
There are no guarantees in life, we all make choices and have to live by them. She gave up the job, because she wanted to be with him. Knew the market in said location was a lot less. Thus taking a big pay cut to be with her beloved.
So it didn''t work out. Life doesn''t always work the way we want it. I hate this litigious society we live in. Ughh,.

I admit I didn''t read the whole thread, so if this point was made before, or I missed some key points, forgive me.

I gotta say, I agree.
I also agree with Dockman and Rob....so it''s not all men that are against this.

I think this case is ridiculous. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If I was a man I would be scared....very scared at where this is heading. I almost wonder if the verdict would have been the same had the sexes been reversed.
Sorry...huge Glenn Sacks fan here, and I consider myself a huge supporter of men''s rights...so when I see a case like this I just feel sick to my stomach.

That''s not to say that this is strictly an issue of the sexes, but as of today it is mostly men that propose.......so watch out guys. Know who you''re proposing to!

 

[kittybean]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:31:21 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/26/2008 12:01:36 AM

Author: littlelysser


I''ve really enjoyed this thread too! Good stuffs for sure!


Now, one thing I''ll say regarding the notion that she could get money for every expense she incurred in reliance on this promise, that isn''t the case. She would only be allowed the reasonable expenses, correct? Apparently to the court the move was a reasonable expense...if that makes sense. But I do understand your point.


As for the 30k he paid for her CCs...well, again, he breached the agreement...so does he have a right to those damages? According to K law, I don''t think he does. Maybe this would have been the place to make an equity agreement? I don''t know.


I totally see what you are saying regarding equity, but the courts really rarely invoke it...and in fairness to the court - the attorney for the Jilter may not have argued it, ya know? A court can only respond to defenses/arguments that are actually raised. Ok, I officially really want to see a copy of this case if it hits westlaw. My guess is that they''ll publish it somewhere...even if it isn''t officially published. I WILL FIND IT!


The more I think about it...I wouldn''t be surprised if the case is not officially published (in my court it was up to the individual judge whether to make an opinion a published opinion). A case that isn''t published is of MINIMAL precedential value...might be one way of making the whole thing go away, at least in terms of the impact it might have on the contract/engagement landscape.


[Threadjack]

Indy - I will never forget my first experience in a court room. One of my professors represented the group of congressmen that sued president Clinton for violating the War Powers Clause and the War Powers Resolution for his action in Kosovo. He sued in federal court, of course, and got bounced out on almost every imaginable ground (mootness, political question, standing). Well the DC circuit granted his appeal and we went to watch the argument before the DC Circuit. My prof. was AMAZING. The judges were AMAZING. The guy from the DOJ was pretty good...they were arguing about the meaning of FOOTNOTES in USSC cases. It was incredible. Esoteric, awe-inspiring. A wonderful experience...however, it totally scarred me! I was TERRIFIED to go to court for the first time as a lawyer and not an observer...finally one of the partners I worked with MADE me go see how it really is for most lawyers...let me tell you, there was no discussion of footnotes at the Friday afternoon Motions Court! It has always been interesting to me that law can be so challenging and incredible and intellectual - but you can also earn a nice living defending DUIs. Just a weird thing about the law.


annnnnnd [/Threadjack.]

Yeah, I don''t think he could''ve independently sued for the $30,000, but I would hope his attorney would argue unjust enrichment in that case...as in she shouldn''t have benefitted from something he did in reliance. I wonder why the court didn''t award any moving expenses - I would think those would be more ''reasonably expected'' under PE than the salary thing...doesn''t sound like they even presented the PE argument from the article though. I would *love* to have been working on this case! I guess this thread, if nothing else, will make all the men around PS very careful about proposing just in case. Even if it''s not officially published in a reporter, Westlaw has some unpublished cases on there, so I will keep checking and definitely revisit with any juicy details if I find it!

I also think this guy has a good case for appeal, so hopefully that will be published too.


**threadjack**


I''ve been to court several times, but never in a *big* case (landlord/tenant, criminal, domestic violence). I am working on a case against Chrysler and another against CVS though, so I secretly hope they go to trial (which they most likely won''t because the corporations don''t want to in these cases because they are in the wrong and there are serious injuries involved) so I can go to federal court! The highest I''ve been thus far is the IN Supreme Court. Con law freaks me out - I couldn''t imagine being an attorney on a case like that anytime soon in my career. My concentration is in Health Law though, so I probably won''t come up against too many ''big-time'' constitutional questions, although of course everything relates back to the Constitution. I also had a HORRIBLE Con Law professor, so that probably contributes to it.


ETA: Note to all PSers - make sure you hire COMPETENT attorneys with EXPERIENCE in what your case concerns!

Love hearing about your courtroom experiences. It is always good to see what other lawyers are doing (or preparing to do)in the courtroom. All of you that are competent attorneys/long-suffering law students/others who love the law now, PLEASE PLEASE give me some MAJOR DUST for the bar exam on Tuesday. I am so stressed/anxious/unable to find my sanity anywhere. Dust would be appreciated!

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:05:24 AM
Author: decodelighted
MAI BRAINS IZ HURTIN WHIFF DUMMNESSS.

That was my morning LOL! You a funny lady, Deco!

And honestly, I think that like I said to dockman...this whole legalese/lawyer speak is a WHOLE different language...I will NEVER forget the first case I read in law school and I scared to death...it was like reading greek. So I'm sure you could have hacked it law school! BUT good on your for not going!

GOOD LUCK KITTYBEAN!!!! The bar SUCKS. I was convinced I'd failed. Convinced. So don't worry if you walk out feeling like you didn't do well. And one of my friends had a really good point - you don't need to get an A on the bar...No one will EVER ask what you score was...All that matters is that you pass.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 3:20:47 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 7/26/2008 12:43:39 AM

Author: Kaleigh

There are no guarantees in life, we all make choices and have to live by them. She gave up the job, because she wanted to be with him. Knew the market in said location was a lot less. Thus taking a big pay cut to be with her beloved.

So it didn''t work out. Life doesn''t always work the way we want it. I hate this litigious society we live in. Ughh,.

I admit I didn''t read the whole thread, so if this point was made before, or I missed some key points, forgive me.

I gotta say, I agree.

I also agree with Dockman and Rob....so it''s not all men that are against this.


I think this case is ridiculous. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If I was a man I would be scared....very scared at where this is heading. I almost wonder if the verdict would have been the same had the sexes been reversed.

Sorry...huge Glenn Sacks fan here, and I consider myself a huge supporter of men''s rights...so when I see a case like this I just feel sick to my stomach.

That''s not to say that this is strictly an issue of the sexes, but as of today it is mostly men that propose.......so watch out guys. Know who you''re proposing to!

I understand where both of you are coming from - I really do...I had a law professor once who made up this crazy hypothetical where the party claiming injury had ABSOLUTELY no case. He asked if the person could sue. This was a first year law class...and we all said, well, no, of course not! His response...WRONG! You can sue anyone, anytime, so long as the court house is open. Which is sad but true.

Kaleigh - I totally get what you are saying. If I had been the bride in this situation, would I have sued my ex? Honestly, I don''t think it would cross my mind...and I''m a lawyer! Well, non-practicing, but STILL! The only point I would make in response is that although you said she moved there to be with him - which is probably partially true...BUT it could be argued she moved there in reliance on this promise to marry her. I know it is an issue of semantics, but since this case hasn''t been published yet, we don''t know what really happened. But I agree that it is a bit nutty that she sued him in the first place.

Lucky - Just to clarify the principles at work here - this case didn''t turn on gender or who proposed. Neither thing is relevant to the issue at hand. Two parties entered into a contract - one breached that contract and other other received damages because of that breach. In theory it should apply to a man or a woman, REGARDLESS of who proposed. Once two parties entered into a contract they are BOTH bound by that contract...not just the person who made the initial offer. The proper warning would be to ANYONE that gets engaged. Not just men. So I hope that quells your fear some.

And I understand that you are entitled to your opinion...but a court cannot rule based on the fact that it believes there should be personal responsibility in a case.. We are a country of laws, not feelings...

And you know, the more I think about this, I wouldn''t be surprised if the state legislatures passed some sort of law in reaction to a case like this - perhaps a shifting of the presumption, etc., in order to stem the tide of possible litigation. Indeed, this case may, ultimately, end in a resolution of the issue in what you''d deem a favorable way. So I really don''t think it is harbinger of the death of free choice in engagement.

 

[isaku5]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:05:24 AM
Author: decodelighted
OMG. My eyes crossed a while back! I *still* can''t figure out how I feel about this but here''s what I knows: MAI BRAINS IZ HURTIN WHIFF DUMMNESSS.

Another thing I know: Never would have hacked it in law school. So at least there''s that objective truth.

ROFLMAO!!! Deco!!! You just made my day. What a hoot

 

[diamondfan]

While I feel badly for her, and all the changes she went through to have this not work out in the end, it is a very slippery slope to be on.

First, we do not really know all the intimate details. Second, life involves risk. She did not have to go with him, but she chose to for the sake of a future together. It did not work out. I, for one, think it much better he DID NOT marry her. It would have been much worse had they married and had children. Isn't someone, someone who had all the right INTENT at the outset, allowed to change their mind without being sued? We live in such a litigious society. I worry that this will now make guys MORE gunshy to propose, and cold feet and what if's will win out over taking a chance on love and being together. If one can now be sued for breaking up with someone, it is just going to spiral into a total mess. Settlements of this type can set a dangerous precedent. And yes, I do agree a formal engagement with a ring is not just simple to end, but the engagement period is also a time where often you learn something that would make getting married a bad choice, or you just see that the two of you are not compatible for marriage. I know it used to follow if the man ends it, the girl gets to keep the ring and if the woman ends it she should give it back. Not sure if that is the case anymore.

I think, in life, there are things one gambles on. Had she NOT moved, then they would not have had any chance. And it stinks to go through all that and get dumped, and if he did all this cavalierly and without regard to her future, like, oh, uproot your life for me and who cares than he is a total jerk off. However, if people are in relationships and taking chances with someone, I think it is slightly stretching it to say there is the contractual aspect. Once you are married, it is different. That is a legal and binding contract albeit one many appear to have little regard for in the long run...

I just think if one starts looking at the nuances of a relationship and make ending one something to sue over, it is heading for disaster. Sometimes in life relationships just fail and it might even be for the best in the long run if it occurs during engagement and not when two people are married and have kids.

 

[FrekeChild]

Well said littlelysser.

It's been my experience that those who are closer to the law tend to be less litigious personally. My parents always taught me that it's really not worth it to sue.

Good luck on the bar KittyBean!!!!

ETA: DF- I think the problem isn't just that she sued because the relationship ended, but mostly because of her lost wages. Yes she took a chance, and all of that, just as all of us who have been in relationships do. But as she was in a verbal contract to marry this man, she relied on him to her detriment.

But all of this is based on only a one page article, and I'm sure those with access to all of the legal proceedings will update us when everything is published, and I think a lot will come out.

I think there is a lot of significance in the fact that they awarded her far more than what she asked for. I'm curious as to WHY.

 

[Anna0499]

I would like to think that this case would''ve been decided similarly if the roles were reversed, but this was decided by a jury of 12 ordinary people with their own presumptions, and I can''t help but think that her attorney pushed the "woman scorned" image of his/her client.

As far as whether the 15% (not $15,000) was a raise or a bonus, I really think it borders on speculation because who knows if she would''ve gotten it if she had stayed, especially if she was supposedly leaving soon to be with her FI anyway. When the case is published, then hopefully we can read more about how this calculation was performed.

**DUST**DUST**DUST**DUST** Kittybean! You''ll go great! What do they call the person who passes the bar with the lowest score? A LAWYER!

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/26/2008 12:43:31 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Well said littlelysser.


It''s been my experience that those who are closer to the law tend to be less litigious personally. My parents always taught me that it''s really not worth it to sue.


Good luck on the bar KittyBean!!!!


ETA: DF- I think the problem isn''t just that she sued because the relationship ended, but mostly because of her lost wages. Yes she took a chance, and all of that, just as all of us who have been in relationships do. But as she was in a verbal contract to marry this man, she relied on him to her detriment.


But all of this is based on only a one page article, and I''m sure those with access to all of the legal proceedings will update us when everything is published, and I think a lot will come out.


I think there is a lot of significance in the fact that they awarded her far more than what she asked for. I''m curious as to WHY.

THIS is what I''m dying to find out!

Surely all the reasonable arguments about the relationship''s dissolution were brought up by the jurors in debate if not the defense lawyer. One would think that a ''bitter woman scorned and looking for revenge'' wouldn''t hold up to the jurors, unless something crazy was going on. Did a witness testify that he was having second thoughts, but asked her to move anyway, knowing that he already wanted out? Or was it truly because she had debt? Why wasn''t the jury fazed by something as huge as massive debt concealed from one''s future spouse? Was the debt an excuse to leave because he was cheating on her? Had he been doing so since before she moved, giving proof to the jurors that he asked her to give up her job in bad faith, and that''s why they nailed him with a much higher amount than asked for?

Is that common, that jurors ignore the damages requested and just slam the defendant with what they think is fair? What on earth happened that the jury felt it warranted such an outrageous amount?

Law isn''t normally this juicy, is it?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/26/2008 1:48:52 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 7/26/2008 12:43:31 PM

Author: FrekeChild

Well said littlelysser.



It''s been my experience that those who are closer to the law tend to be less litigious personally. My parents always taught me that it''s really not worth it to sue.



Good luck on the bar KittyBean!!!!



ETA: DF- I think the problem isn''t just that she sued because the relationship ended, but mostly because of her lost wages. Yes she took a chance, and all of that, just as all of us who have been in relationships do. But as she was in a verbal contract to marry this man, she relied on him to her detriment.



But all of this is based on only a one page article, and I''m sure those with access to all of the legal proceedings will update us when everything is published, and I think a lot will come out.



I think there is a lot of significance in the fact that they awarded her far more than what she asked for. I''m curious as to WHY.

THIS is what I''m dying to find out!


Surely all the reasonable arguments about the relationship''s dissolution were brought up by the jurors in debate if not the defense lawyer. One would think that a ''bitter woman scorned and looking for revenge'' wouldn''t hold up to the jurors, unless something crazy was going on. Did a witness testify that he was having second thoughts, but asked her to move anyway, knowing that he already wanted out? Or was it truly because she had debt? Why wasn''t the jury fazed by something as huge as massive debt concealed from one''s future spouse? Was the debt an excuse to leave because he was cheating on her? Had he been doing so since before she moved, giving proof to the jurors that he asked her to give up her job in bad faith, and that''s why they nailed him with a much higher amount than asked for?


Is that common, that jurors ignore the damages requested and just slam the defendant with what they think is fair? What on earth happened that the jury felt it warranted such an outrageous amount?


Law isn''t normally this juicy, is it?

Uh huh! On tv!!

I can''t wait until this case gets published.

Oh and again I agree with littelysser

 

[Circe]

Apparently, he knew about the debt ... article and video. While I''m not sure how I feel about the case as a whole, watching the video, I feel rather sorry for the woman.

 

[FrekeChild]

I feel sorry for her too, seeing that...

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/26/2008 2:39:36 PM
Author: Circe
Apparently, he knew about the debt ... article and video. While I'm not sure how I feel about the case as a whole, watching the video, I feel rather sorry for the woman.

Fascinating! That does put quite a light on things.

Not to mention the repeated emphasis on the conservative nature of the juries in the area, to the point where the lawyer debated whether it was worth it to even try the case. And the bit about "they render conservative verdicts"?! That makes the decision to give her more than she asked for all the more unusual and intriguing.

I think her lawyer made a key point when asked about setting precedents when she said (paraphrasing here) that when people make promises with reliance at stake and then renege on that promise, leaving the other party up sh*t creek as a result, then it is more than just a case of being 'jilted', and that it's not really setting a precedent because it's the reliance that's the issue.

Plus, the fact that they split previously because he didn't follow through, and then dudeface goes above and beyond to win her back, driving out there to propose with a giant rock, begging her to give up everything and come marry him, making serious, concrete actions to support his intentions; I agree with what the lawyer said about it being more than a simple "will you marry me?".

I don't want to offend anyone by referencing her age, but it did make me wonder about the impact this may have had on her career. It's possible she may have spent decades building up her reputation and working towards a high-earning position like that, I'd be furious too if I gave up my 'holy grail' job for an empty promise.

I suppose my views are slanted by being an international transplant for the sake of a man; I understand all too well how painful it is to give up everything, and be in miserable circumstances you would have never chosen for yourself. However, I didn't give up an amazing career to come here, and if something terrible happened, I could go home and more or less pick up my life where it left off. I doubt she could so easily.

 

[FrekeChild]

Gala!!!