HiItsMe Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16966088/detail.html Yikes!!
Lovely Disaster Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 This wasn't a case of a boyfriend dumping a girlfriend...this was a case of a woman moving and taking a lower paying job to be with her fiance, who cancelled the wedding 3 days before. Totally different scenario. Good for her.
imbewildered Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 This wasn't a case of a boyfriend dumping a girlfriend...this was a case of a woman moving and taking a lower paying job to be with her fiance, who cancelled the wedding 3 days before. Totally different scenario. Good for her. Another example of the feminine wussification of American courts and a further breathtaking example of some women's crass sense of entitlement. Everyone has the right to change their mind when they find out that they have been deceived. She deceived him and he bailed. I hope that he appeals this outrage. Men, find out ALL the fine details about 'her' before you propose. Better still - do not contemplate marriage at all.
CarDude2015 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 So she LIES to her soon to be husband about debt AFTER he had already paid $30,000 FOR her, and is surprised he broke it off??? What the hell is this country coming to when a woman can lie, cheat, steal, get rewarded for it and NOT go to jail? She intentionally committed fraud regarding the debt that she owed and should be charged as such...NOT the other way around.
tanbark813 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Ridiculous. A minor consolation is that in the poll about whether or not you agree with the decision "Absolutely Not!" is overwhelmingly the majority at 74% (at least when I took it).
woods321 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 I remember when i was about 25 I dated a woman who seemingly had her stuff together. New car, condo, etc. Since I am the more practical type I had an old car, small apartment etc. I don't live over my head. Turns out she owed about 70,000 for school, 30,000 on credit cards, was leasing her car, and had an interest only loan on her home. What a complete nightmare that would have been. Of course if we were married, and she became pregnant, who was going to foot the bill? I feel the guy was a saint for paying 30k of her debt off. How did he lose this case?
GPFan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Judges aren't generally known for being stupid. I would look up and read the actual case history before judging. The mainstream media isn't our best source of information any longer, rarely do you get the full story.
Lookingforward Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Another example of the feminine wussification of American courts and a further breathtaking example of some women's crass sense of entitlement. Everyone has the right to change their mind when they find out that they have been deceived. She deceived him and he bailed. I hope that he appeals this outrage. Men, find out ALL the fine details about 'her' before you propose. Better still - do not contemplate marriage at all. Don't know where you're getting the "recent development" stuff from - this is just the same as what used to be known as a "breach of promise" suit......seems there was deceit on both sides, but a judge decided she had suffered financial loss by moving to be with him.
Art_Critic Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Another example of the feminine wussification of American courts and a further breathtaking example of some women's crass sense of entitlement. It was a jury trial..not ruled from the bench... I would bet anything the guy can get this over turned as a jury gone wild verdict.. As far as the woman goes.. She will most likely never find another guy after this.. at least not a guy that reads the news
Art_Critic Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 So she LIES to her soon to be husband about debt AFTER he had already paid $30,000 FOR her, and is surprised he broke it off??? It turned out in court that she didn't have tons of debt and he was using that as an excuse.. So he was the one who lied about the debt.. She left a job making 81k a year and moved to another state only to be trashed 3 days before the wedding by a note left in the bathroom.. He didn't even have the balls to break up face to face.. Seems to me the guy is a creep.. not a man.. the jury seems to have seen it that way... I guess there is an argument for both sides seeing as the marriage is the legal event not the engagement but in this case she had huge financial loss because of him...or because he didn't go thru with the wedding and handled the way he did...
imbewildered Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 She left a job making 81k a year and moved to another state only to be trashed 3 days before the wedding by a note left in the bathroom.. He didn't even have the balls to break up face to face.. So she lost money by falling in love- boo hoo. That is life girls. I don't recall readoing about any similar case in which a man sued a woman for breaking up with him. A look at the video gives a big clue why he bailed. THis is another example of women's belief that if life does not go their way they are entitled to a refund - just like K mart.
imbewildered Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 He didn't even have the balls to break up face to face.. Seems to me the guy is a creep.. not a man.. the jury seems to have seen it that way... ... So you believe that because he decided not to break up face to face then she is entitled to a big payout ? Bizarre thinking ..
BUENG1 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 This ruling makes no sense to me. An engagement is clearly not a a binding contract, I mean even a marriage isn't a binding contract.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Nope. If you read the details, she had an 80,000 a year job and moved for him because he proposed, and had to take a 30,000 a year job to move for him. She wouldn't have moved if he had not proposed marriage. In the course of the testimony, it came out that he never intended to marry her. Why should her life be ruined just because he f**ked with her mind in deceiving her into thinking he was going to marry her? So he should just get away this deception and he loses nothing, while she lost a good paying job in the process? Another example of the feminine wussification of American courts and a further breathtaking example of some women's crass sense of entitlement. Everyone has the right to change their mind when they find out that they have been deceived. She deceived him and he bailed. I hope that he appeals this outrage. Men, find out ALL the fine details about 'her' before you propose. Better still - do not contemplate marriage at all.
nittygritty Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 The woman probably got a better deal than if she had actually married the guy and had gotten divorced.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Even if he did pay $30,000 of her debt, that still doesn't cover the $50,000 loss of pay she is taking a hit for, for just one year. This really isn't about "dumping" a woman, it's about how much financial hardship she was left with because she moved with the intention of marrying him. Meanwhile, he is left without any financial hardship. I think it is very fair - I have the feeling he has a much higher paying job than the $30,000 a year job she was stuck with. If he hadn't asked her to move there and marry him in the first place, she would still be in the other city making $80,000 a year so I do feel in this case it is very fair. She does deserve some compensation since he really wasn't put out anything and she clearly took a big hit salarywise.
Woggle Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 And women wonder why men don't want to commit. This is beyond absurd. I hope she develops a coke habit and sniffs it all up her nose because that would serve her right. If this man can be sued does that mean that walkaway wives can be sued as well?
GPFan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 It turned out in court that she didn't have tons of debt and he was using that as an excuse.. So he was the one who lied about the debt.. She left a job making 81k a year and moved to another state only to be trashed 3 days before the wedding by a note left in the bathroom.. He didn't even have the balls to break up face to face.. Seems to me the guy is a creep.. not a man.. the jury seems to have seen it that way... I guess there is an argument for both sides seeing as the marriage is the legal event not the engagement but in this case she had huge financial loss because of him...or because he didn't go thru with the wedding and handled the way he did... Nope. If you read the details, she had an 80,000 a year job and moved for him because he proposed, and had to take a 30,000 a year job to move for him. She wouldn't have moved if he had not proposed marriage. In the course of the testimony, it came out that he never intended to marry her. Why should her life be ruined just because he f**ked with her mind in deceiving her into thinking he was going to marry her? So he should just get away this deception and he loses nothing, while she lost a good paying job in the process?I assumed as much. A contract whether oral or written is still a contract. Oral contracts are much more difficult to prove in court. This woman had the advantage of e-mails and similar electronic means of communication to prove that a promise had been made. She relied on that promise and took a pay cut that she wouldn't have suffered otherwise. This woman is being pilloried in the court of public opinion because the mainstream media is not doing the job it should. Shame.
grogster Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 I suspect the plaintiff did not recover for breach of a contract to marry. Those Broken Heart contracts are not enforceable in most states. My guess is that she asserted a promissory estoppel claim. In reliance on his promise to marry she took a lower paying job and suffered the consequences when he jilted her. On the other hand, Georgia may not have a Heart Balm statute, which prohibits causes of action for breach of contracts to marry. So I wouldn't date anyone in Georgia--especially this Plaintiff.
woods321 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 First of all She decided to take the lower paying job and move. Many people take a lower salary to live by the beach. She received enjoyment from that. Sure beats Hall County. Maybe her new job was much easier, who knows? Gave her more free time? Maybe she made it more clear as time went buy that the guy was just a wallet. Perhaps he resented that feeling. Why are the women here not realizing he paid off 30,000 of her debt AND took her on vacations. Sounds like a good guy to me. Maye she liked the new job, and didn't want to change to a higher paying one due to higher stress levels, who knows. It was her decision.
BUENG1 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Nope. If you read the details, she had an 80,000 a year job and moved for him because he proposed, and had to take a 30,000 a year job to move for him. She wouldn't have moved if he had not proposed marriage. In the course of the testimony, it came out that he never intended to marry her. Why should her life be ruined just because he f**ked with her mind in deceiving her into thinking he was going to marry her? So he should just get away this deception and he loses nothing, while she lost a good paying job in the process? She had the choice to not move and not quit her job and she also had the choice to be honest with her fiance so he could make an informed decision about whether he wanted to marry her. A proposal is conditional as is a marriage and the idea (on such things as fidelity and no attempts to scam the other party are committed etc etc) that she should be able to collect damages is ridiculous. Also he doesn't come away without any financial hardship, she ripped him off of 30,000 while lying about how much debt she had.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Uh, she moved and changed jobs because of the arrangement he was going to marry her. She didn't deceive him in anyway, he deceived her.
BUENG1 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Uh, she moved and changed jobs because of the arrangement he was going to marry her. She didn't deceive him in anyway, he deceived her. She lied about how much debt she had.
I Luv the Chariot OH Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 She didn't HAVE to give up her job to move in with him; they weren't married yet. That was her choice. Of course she's going to be bitter if her fiance broke up with her via a note three days before the wedding...but how did she build up the nerve to take him to court, especially after he paid off $30,000 of her debts? Ridiculous. Counter-suit, anyone???
BUENG1 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 And another thing, why should this guy have to pay because his former fiance choose to be underemployed taking a job with a lower salary, regardless of the issue of his culpability because of their engagement. Its all ridiculous really.
Recommended Posts