Jilted Bride Sues & Wins

[littlelysser]

Wow. Interesting video. I had a picture in my mind of what the parties looked like..very interesting to get to actually see them, well, at least one.

This was clearly a case where he said more than lets get married and so she up and moved there and is now seeking redress because of a broken heart.

Reliance is the issue here, and the fact that they agreed to marry and he requested that she move there, give up her job, etc., to make the marriage happen. Had he not proposed and they not agreed to marry, I HIGHLY doubt she'd have moved just to make things work.

Interesting stuff.

Oh and Galatia - I was an attorney for a HUGE, international firm for four years...and lemme tell you, I didn't see anything close to something that sexy and juicy. Suing an insurance company on behalf of an large corporation because the insurance company refused to indemnify the corporation for losses and monies it had to put out to due to an some random event...yeah. Document review for hours and hours. About as sexy as dry toast.

 

[FrekeChild]

Divorce/Family law is fascinating. My dad is a divorce attorney and I worked for his firm for about a year, and the things you hear in there...I have heard some people''s deepest darkest secrets when they are in their darkest moments in there. The phone calls from weeping women and men, the soap opera stories about newly discovered sexual addiction, international kidnapping by spouses, estate drama, prenuptial drama, post nuptial drama, etc etc etc.

Now granted, every day wasn''t like that, but it was like that quite a bit.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 3:54:50 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Divorce/Family law is fascinating. My dad is a divorce attorney and I worked for his firm for about a year, and the things you hear in there...I have heard some people's deepest darkest secrets when they are in their darkest moments in there. The phone calls from weeping women and men, the soap opera stories about newly discovered sexual addiction, international kidnapping by spouses, estate drama, prenuptial drama, post nuptial drama, etc etc etc.


Now granted, every day wasn't like that, but it was like that quite a bit.

I agree. I've been exposed to just about every kind of law out there...from DUI to an insurance case that settled for over 250 million smackers...and out of everything I worked on, I found family law, employment law and criminal law to be the most interesting, in an ohhhhhhhh this is juicy kind of way.

However, I will say that particularly with family law and criminal law, I dealt with cases that continue to haunt me to this day...abuse and neglect and ugh. Just really heartbreaking stuff...

I'm a total law nerd, however, and my favorite stuff by FAR was federal jurisdiction and issues relating to the relationship between state and federal court. I know. I'm totally lame.

 

[littlelysser]

CNN had a more indepth report on it...

Interesting stuffs.

I''m a technical moron, so I don''t know how to do that whole link in the text thing...so here ya go:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/24/pn.fiancee.dumped.cnn

 

[luckystar112]

After watching the video I can still say that I don''t feel even an ounce of pity for her. I guess I''m cold-hearted.
Sounds like this lady''s life is one mistake after another. And to be frank, it sounds like she was going to screw him no matter what, whether it be by ruining his credit in the long run or fighting for half of his assets in a divorce. She seems like a total flake to me, not a victim. He didn''t hold a gun to her head.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/26/2008 4:36:17 PM
Author: littlelysser
CNN had a more indepth report on it...


Interesting stuffs.


I'm a technical moron, so I don't know how to do that whole link in the text thing...so here ya go:


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/24/pn.fiancee.dumped.cnn

So there HAS been role reversal where a man sued a woman for promising to provide reliance and then leaving him high and dry. Some of us were afraid that this lawsuit would leave guys in more danger, but clearly it's not limited to men being on the hook.

I think the crux of this matter is getting clouded by people assuming it's about a relationship, a 'heart balm' issue. Let's say that they weren't engaged, that it was a business partnership. Person A and Person B had planned to go into business together, merge assets, etc (like a marriage) and Person A fails to come through. Person B says "So we are not going to have a partnership after all? Okay, I'm moving on."

Person A then begs person B to reconsider, promises Person B the world on a platter if they'll quit their amazing dream job, cut ties, invest all their assets into the partnership, and move a huge distance to start up a business together. Person B agrees to do so if the partnership offer goes through. Person A assures them it will THIS TIME. Person A then bolts AGAIN, after Person B has invested all their assets into the merger and can't recoup them. Person B sues the pants off of Person A.

Vs. Person A and Person B working at the same job in the same town, Person A suggests they start a business. Both give up an equal amount to join the venture, and are equally out of pocket if it fails to go through.

I'm guessing that the aforementioned business proposition fallout would not generate the batting of an eyelash for going to court?

What's interesting is that the opponent of this case featured in the video argued that this case hearkens back to days when women's reputations were "sullied" and their futures jeopardized by a broken engagement, and that in the sexual culture of the 2000's, that shouldn't be a factor. But it IS, although in this case it's her professional reputation and her financial future jeopardized.

I hope people everywhere take this as a lesson that you shouldn't promise extravagant things in order to convince people to make huge sacrifices for your sake if you don't plan on following through on them.

 

[MoonWater]

Props to Galateia!

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 4:58:40 PM
Author: luckystar112
After watching the video I can still say that I don''t feel even an ounce of pity for her. I guess I''m cold-hearted.

Sounds like this lady''s life is one mistake after another. And to be frank, it sounds like she was going to screw him no matter what, whether it be by ruining his credit in the long run or fighting for half of his assets in a divorce. She seems like a total flake to me, not a victim. He didn''t hold a gun to her head.

You are entitled to your opinion...but here''s the thing...

The fact that her life was "one mistake after another," that she was going to screw him regardless, or that she is a flake is entirely irrelevant to that case at hand.

Two parties enter into an agreement, both understanding the terms of that agreement. Doesn''t matter if one of the parties is the suckiest human being that ever lived...that party is still entitled to redress if the other party breaches the contract.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 5:07:23 PM
Author: Galateia
So there HAS been role reversal where a man sued a woman for promising to provide reliance and then leaving him high and dry. Some of us were afraid that this lawsuit would leave guys in more danger, but clearly it''s not limited to men being on the hook.


I think the crux of this matter is getting clouded by people assuming it''s about a relationship, a ''heart balm'' issue. Let''s say that they weren''t engaged, that it was a business partnership. Person A and Person B had planned to go into business together, merge assets, etc (like a marriage) and Person A fails to come through. Person B says ''So we are not going to have a partnership after all? Okay, I''m moving on.''


Person A then begs person B to reconsider, promises Person B the world on a platter if they''ll quit their amazing dream job, cut ties, invest all their assets into the partnership, and move a huge distance to start up a business together. Person B agrees to do so if the partnership offer goes through. Person A assures them it will THIS TIME. Person A then bolts AGAIN, after Person B has invested all their assets into the merger and can''t recoup them. Person B sues the pants off of Person A.


Vs. Person A and Person B working at the same job in the same town, Person A suggests they start a business. Both give up an equal amount to join the venture, and are equally out of pocket if it fails to go through.


I''m guessing that the aforementioned business proposition fallout would not generate the batting of an eyelash for going to court?


What''s interesting is that the opponent of this case featured in the video argued that this case hearkens back to days when women''s reputations were ''sullied'' and their futures jeopardized by a broken engagement, and that in the sexual culture of the 2000''s, that shouldn''t be a factor. But it IS, although in this case it''s her professional reputation and her financial future jeopardized.


I hope people everywhere take this as a lesson that you shouldn''t promise extravagant things in order to convince people to make huge sacrifices for your sake if you don''t plan on following through on them.

If anything could be taken from this case I think the bolded section is it! This isn''t a case where the guy had to pay the $150K because he broke off the engagement. It is because of the things she did in reliance of that promise, and per his request.

And your analogy re: Person A and B is spot on.

Also - for the record, I found the lawyer that was against the decision to be talking drivel. Using inflammatory terms, talking about women as chattel and not addressing the actual CONTRACT issue.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 7/26/2008 5:34:16 PM
Author: littlelysser


You are entitled to your opinion...but here''s the thing...

The fact that her life was ''one mistake after another,'' that she was going to screw him regardless, or that she is a flake is entirely irrelevant to that case at hand.

Two parties enter into an agreement, both understanding the terms of that agreement. Doesn''t matter if one of the parties is the suckiest human being that ever lived...that party is still entitled to redress if the other party breaches the contract.

I know I''m entitled to my opinion, that''s why I posted it.

Neither of my posts have addressed whether or not she was entitled to sue...so, not sure why people keep pointing that out.

That''s not to say that I don''t think suing for "breaking a contract to make a contract" isn''t ridiculous, because it totally is. I can think its ridiculous while still acknowledging the basics of the case.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/26/2008 5:41:26 PM
Author: littlelysser

Also - for the record, I found the lawyer that was against the decision to be talking drivel. Using inflammatory terms, talking about women as chattel and not addressing the actual CONTRACT issue.

That bugged me too.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/26/2008 5:43:34 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 7/26/2008 5:34:16 PM

Author: littlelysser



You are entitled to your opinion...but here's the thing...


The fact that her life was 'one mistake after another,' that she was going to screw him regardless, or that she is a flake is entirely irrelevant to that case at hand.


Two parties enter into an agreement, both understanding the terms of that agreement. Doesn't matter if one of the parties is the suckiest human being that ever lived...that party is still entitled to redress if the other party breaches the contract.

I know I'm entitled to my opinion, that's why I posted it.

Neither of my posts have addressed whether or not she was entitled to sue...so, not sure why people keep pointing that out.

That's not to say that I don't think suing for 'breaking a contract to make a contract' isn't ridiculous, because it totally is. I can think its ridiculous while still acknowledging the basics of the case.

I think people keep pointing out that she's entitled to redress because they are focusing on the law and not the emotional side of it. The case, according to the law, isn't ridiculous at all. I think the business model analogy is great and thankfully that's the way courts have viewed similar situations.

 

[strmrdr]

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.
That is the end result.

 

[absolut_blonde]

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM
Author: strmrdr
If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.
That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.

I''m fortunate in that when I located to SO''s city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we''re not engaged. If I''d had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I''d be counting on that engagement.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM
Author: strmrdr
If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I think you are right.

But here''s the thing - it shouldn''t.

This sort of case isn''t new and doesn''t really represent a sea change in the law.

It doesn''t only apply to men or the individual that proposed.

I think any resulting chilling effect it might have is because people just don''t understand what actually happened in this case and why...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM
Author: strmrdr
If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW's who are never going to be asked.
That is the end result.

I agree...of course this case, in theory, applies to both sexes, but let's be honest - men are the ones who propose most of the time. According to the court, when a person proposes in GA they are legally (and financially) responsible for anything they could reasonably foresee their FI giving up to be with them. If anyone learns anything from this case, I hope it is the WOMEN who are thinking about picking up their lives and sacrificing to move to be with someone with whom they are not the married. The judicial system in GA obviously prefers people get married and divorced the next day rather than cancel an engagement

as if his responsibility to her somehow vanishes in one day with a piece of paper...I guess I'm the only one who sees the ridiculousness in that line of reasoning. I suspect that this case would not have even been tried in other jurisdictions, though, so maybe it's not as widespread a precedent as I am giving it credit. I don't know all the details of their relationship, but if a man had broken my heart previously I would be less than willing to move and accept $50,000 less/year until I had that marriage license, especially when I had over $30,000 in debt already...which brings us back to deco's point about women being so desperate for a husband.

Family law is very interesting...but I decided a long time ago I won't be practicing it because it gets so emotional and I'd rather leave my work at work and work on Family Law cases pro bono.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2008 6:32:15 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM

Author: strmrdr

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.


I''m fortunate in that when I located to SO''s city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we''re not engaged. If I''d had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I''d be counting on that engagement.

I know a huge number of guys who will never get married or married again because of the unfair way the courts treat guys in divorces and custody.
On one board I hang out on there are at least 20-30 of them.
In total I know of at least a few hundred both online and in person that feel that way.
This is just another case to prove them right in their minds whether it really does doesn''t matter.

 

[absolut_blonde]

Date: 7/26/2008 7:58:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/26/2008 6:32:15 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM

Author: strmrdr

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.


I''m fortunate in that when I located to SO''s city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we''re not engaged. If I''d had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I''d be counting on that engagement.

I know a huge number of guys who will never get married or married again because of the unfair way the courts treat guys in divorces and custody.
On one board I hang out on there are at least 20-30 of them.
In total I know of at least a few hundred both online and in person that feel that way.
This is just another case to prove them right in their minds whether it really does doesn''t matter.

That''s too bad, but... at the same time, I would never date a man who thought that way in the first place. JMO.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Date: 7/26/2008 8:11:53 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 7:58:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/26/2008 6:32:15 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM

Author: strmrdr

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW's who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.


I'm fortunate in that when I located to SO's city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we're not engaged. If I'd had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I'd be counting on that engagement.

I know a huge number of guys who will never get married or married again because of the unfair way the courts treat guys in divorces and custody.
On one board I hang out on there are at least 20-30 of them.
In total I know of at least a few hundred both online and in person that feel that way.
This is just another case to prove them right in their minds whether it really does doesn't matter.

That's too bad, but... at the same time, I would never date a man who thought that way in the first place. JMO.

That's the thing - these guys who have that perspective on marriage aren't incredibly forthright with their feelings, especially to potential "targets". You would never know that he had those feelings/fears about marriage because he would never tell you, and just break up with you when it came down to the final hour.

I think Strm and I may hang out on the same board, (extremely male dominated, whenever a guy posts that he's engaged, posts of www.nomarriage.com abound).

This story was posted multiple times on the board I am a member of - several were > 20 page threads, and all of them led with titles of the nature of "This is why men shouldn't get engaged!"

 

[FrekeChild]

Wow LTP....that website is scary...

ETA: the more I look, the more horrified I get.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Date: 7/27/2008 11:23:38 AM
Author: FrekeChild
Wow LTP....that website is scary...

ETA: the more I look, the more horrified I get.

I know - it''s crazy, but there are loads of sites like that, and several hundreds of thousands of American and Westernized European men that believe the concept it promotes.

It''s a shame, but many of our "gold-digging" sisters have really started to taint the hard-working single or dating man''s feelings about marriage. I place "gold-digging" in quotes, because we only have the male perspective on the story, and regardless of whether a man insisted his wife stay home to take care of children, or she opted to be taken care of, we''ll never have the honest details of both sides of the story.

 

[absolut_blonde]

Date: 7/27/2008 11:16:38 AM
Author: LaurenThePartier

Date: 7/26/2008 8:11:53 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 7:58:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/26/2008 6:32:15 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM

Author: strmrdr

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.


I''m fortunate in that when I located to SO''s city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we''re not engaged. If I''d had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I''d be counting on that engagement.

I know a huge number of guys who will never get married or married again because of the unfair way the courts treat guys in divorces and custody.
On one board I hang out on there are at least 20-30 of them.
In total I know of at least a few hundred both online and in person that feel that way.
This is just another case to prove them right in their minds whether it really does doesn''t matter.

That''s too bad, but... at the same time, I would never date a man who thought that way in the first place. JMO.

That''s the thing - these guys who have that perspective on marriage aren''t incredibly forthright with their feelings, especially to potential ''targets''. You would never know that he had those feelings/fears about marriage because he would never tell you, and just break up with you when it came down to the final hour.

I think Strm and I may hang out on the same board, (extremely male dominated, whenever a guy posts that he''s engaged, posts of www.nomarriage.com abound).

This story was posted multiple times on the board I am a member of - several were > 20 page threads, and all of them led with titles of the nature of ''This is why men shouldn''t get engaged!''

Call it blind faith, but I''m still sure that SO isn''t in that camp. I''m sure I''ve probably casually dated at least one guy like that, but I know SO is not.

I still think there is a ''certain type'' of guy that gravitates towards this school of thought.

And, as far as financial concerns go (though I realize it doesn''t resolve the custody issue if you have children), pre-nups DO exist. So to some extent, the entire attitude rings of a bit of a cop out to me. If you don''t want to get married, that''s totally ok. But don''t act like there are all of these external factors that are responsible for that!

And leading on a woman who does want to get married when you know 110% that you never will is abhorrent.

 

[princesss]

I had to stop reading that site. I mean, everybody can do what they want, but...yikes.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ditto princesss...that site is...horror for the psychologist and sociologist in me. And its very ignorant, being that they are super generalizing with many of the "topics" discussed-one that of course caught my eye was the Histrionic and Narcissistic Personality Disorders. They are VERY rare, and very serious and the only person that I have met that could possibly be diagnosed with either one (actually both, as well as Antisocial) is MALE.

Not to even mention that most people display some of the diagnostic symptoms of them between the ages of 13-25.

Scary scary propaganda going on over there...

 

[absolut_blonde]

Date: 7/27/2008 1:53:41 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Ditto princesss...that site is...horror for the psychologist and sociologist in me. And its very ignorant, being that they are super generalizing with many of the ''topics'' discussed-one that of course caught my eye was the Histrionic and Narcissistic Personality Disorders. They are VERY rare, and very serious and the only person that I have met that could possibly be diagnosed with either one (actually both, as well as Antisocial) is MALE.

Not to even mention that most people display some of the diagnostic symptoms of them between the ages of 13-25.

Scary scary propaganda going on over there...

Narcissicm sprang to mind to me, too. (I was a psych major too! Yay psych geeks!). Particularly the mention of "targets". That is not a normal attitude.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Date: 7/27/2008 1:53:41 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Ditto princesss...that site is...horror for the psychologist and sociologist in me. And its very ignorant, being that they are super generalizing with many of the ''topics'' discussed-one that of course caught my eye was the Histrionic and Narcissistic Personality Disorders. They are VERY rare, and very serious and the only person that I have met that could possibly be diagnosed with either one (actually both, as well as Antisocial) is MALE.

Not to even mention that most people display some of the diagnostic symptoms of them between the ages of 13-25.

Scary scary propaganda going on over there...

My thought is that it''s just some total loser guy who absolutely failed miserably with the stronger, more independent American woman.

Same with pickup artists - the men that partake in that type of game-playing are not the guys worth developing a meaningful relationship with. I think they''d be fairly easy to pick out after a few weeks of dating, but I''ve read stories of men carrying on serious relationships for years and then abandoning their girlfriends after the topic of marriage is pushed.

It takes a certain level of cynicism to be able to convincingly pull that lifestyle off, and at that point, I doubt the guy cares about anyone but himself.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Date: 7/27/2008 1:22:49 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/27/2008 11:16:38 AM
Author: LaurenThePartier

Date: 7/26/2008 8:11:53 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 7:58:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/26/2008 6:32:15 PM
Author: absolut_blonde

Date: 7/26/2008 6:10:32 PM

Author: strmrdr

If this ruling stands there are going to be a lot more LIW''s who are never going to be asked.

That is the end result.

I personally doubt that. The majority of engagements are not under circumstances such as this case. Most people are in regular, non-LDR relationships that do not require one person to make a sacrifice of some sort to relocate and be in the same place.


I''m fortunate in that when I located to SO''s city, I was able to find employment making the same salary I did previously. And we''re not engaged. If I''d had to take such a significant pay cut, though, you can bet that it would be only under the circumstances of a formal engagement AND that I''d be counting on that engagement.

I know a huge number of guys who will never get married or married again because of the unfair way the courts treat guys in divorces and custody.
On one board I hang out on there are at least 20-30 of them.
In total I know of at least a few hundred both online and in person that feel that way.
This is just another case to prove them right in their minds whether it really does doesn''t matter.

That''s too bad, but... at the same time, I would never date a man who thought that way in the first place. JMO.

That''s the thing - these guys who have that perspective on marriage aren''t incredibly forthright with their feelings, especially to potential ''targets''. You would never know that he had those feelings/fears about marriage because he would never tell you, and just break up with you when it came down to the final hour.

I think Strm and I may hang out on the same board, (extremely male dominated, whenever a guy posts that he''s engaged, posts of www.nomarriage.com abound).

This story was posted multiple times on the board I am a member of - several were > 20 page threads, and all of them led with titles of the nature of ''This is why men shouldn''t get engaged!''

Call it blind faith, but I''m still sure that SO isn''t in that camp. I''m sure I''ve probably casually dated at least one guy like that, but I know SO is not.

I still think there is a ''certain type'' of guy that gravitates towards this school of thought.

And, as far as financial concerns go (though I realize it doesn''t resolve the custody issue if you have children), pre-nups DO exist. So to some extent, the entire attitude rings of a bit of a cop out to me. If you don''t want to get married, that''s totally ok. But don''t act like there are all of these external factors that are responsible for that!

And leading on a woman who does want to get married when you know 110% that you never will is abhorrent.

Right - I wasn''t singling you out as your SO being a non-marryable man - just that - you can''t ensure that you''ll actually be able to tell what their intentions are, because there''s an agenda behind it, and they know what they have to do and say to keep a woman''s attention long enough to get what they want.

It sucks to know how completely abhorent some men can be, but there are many more out there than you can imagine.