serial muse Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Because I was 100% serious too. I abhor sarcasm. No, I know, tan - it's just that most of the people on this thread actually are serious. And it's seriously scary.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I already stated that I personally wouldn't sue in that situation. So this is a personal attack and I think you are a jerk. I do agree if I were to move for a guy, I would secure a similar-paying job first. If the man wanted me to not work and have children and stay home with them, I would wait to quit my job and move to make sure the wedding did happen. I don't think she handled it well, I already stated that, but according to the law she was allowed to do so. I do think what we aren't hearing in this particular case, is how much the man mislead her. I am inclined to believe that he had her move with NO intention on marrying her, and he really didn't think out the consequences or realize what this woman was actually doing for him and how seriously she was taking the offer of marriage. I would need to have more details of everything that happened, how much he mislead her. She appearently did have a legal right to sue, and she was taking a real risk by hiring a lawyer because she would be out lawyer fees if she took her exfiance to court and lost. She would be out lawyer fees. So she must have had a pretty solid case if she actually went to court with it, and she refused an earlier offer of a settlement. (The fact that the guy agreed to a settlement, which the woman didn't accept, makes me think the guy realized he was pretty shifty in his actions, he was admitting guilt in a way.) But I still wouldn't sue in this case. I moved across the country last year, not because of a man, I just wanted a lifechange. So I would see this as an opportunity to get the hell out of there and get a new job and start a new exciting life somewhere else. This woman apparently has the ability to obtain an $81,000 a year job, so she cana move to an exciting area and get a similar job, like I did! That's how I would have handled it. In the end, this woman is still going to need to get a better job, $150,000 really isn't enough to live on for that long! Oh poor her. She is such a victim. I think the only people who sides with her are those poor "victims" of their own case of "If I knew then what I know today, I would not have done it." When will these people grow up and say and accept that SHE/THEY MADE HER/THEIR OWN BED AND NOW MUST LIE IN IT? Are people really that blind? I she would of been laughed out in any smaller courts because it is counted as one of those risks one takes in a relationship. The simple golddigger CHOSE ON HER OWN VOLITION, IN THE HOPE (this is the operable here) FOR THE TWO GETTING MARRIED! What should he have done? Married her knowing full well he would not be happy? Lovely I would suggest you not to date or getting married. And men and women should be fore warned of women and men like these No this is not a personal attack but an observation and from life experiences and watching court program shows. Women like this do not take responsibility for their own actions. Yes, they many say, "Now that I taught about it and saw what happened, I was stupid for doing it. But, I did it because I was in love." Of freak'n please! This is the biggest cop out and pity party. She took a chance and it did not pay off. A relationship is like going anything else with life, a gamble. You want to play, have to be willing to pay. Now the only time you should get anything back was if it was intentionally a game was intentionally rigged for your lose. If any one dares, I would like some one to answer the following questions... 1) What if it were on the other foot? Should he or any man should have the right to so a woman who is making more money than him for expenses occurred for the hopes of a marriage? 2) Do you really think this lends to promoting a healthy relationships? 3) Should he be allowed to sue for money he spent on the debts that he paid that are clearly her own? 4) If you were in the same situation. Would you sue? 5) If you were one of the jurors, would you have made the same decision? 6) Do you think this kind of law should be in place for everyone who decide they want pay back for suffering a probability of life? 7) If you live in another country, do you have such laws on your book? Have any man or woman prospered from it? DNR
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 DNR, what do you have to say about this, this is a man who stated this? AND a lawyer? Really! That's interesting. If so, the whole thing smacks of fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff detrimentally relied on defendant's fraudulent promise to marry. He defrauded her, and she deserves damages for the harm. If this were a regular business deal between two guys, no one, but the parties and their lawyers, would care. F@ck him--he deserves to take the hit.
I Luv the Chariot OH Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Juries are made up of everyday people, most who dont even want to be wasting their day. Its not like they're god and infallible Nah, that's wrong. Educate. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/dpen0025.pdf/$file/dpen0025.pdf
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I can probably guarantee the people on the jury care less than the people on this board. One of the jurors even gave an interview saying she did not agree with the verdict, but just wanted to go home. So, juries screw up. He can appeal. Of course she is a gold digging whore. Why does she need to be married in her mid 50's? So she can have the security of HIS money. Its not like they will start a family together, or build a life together. She already got about 50k out of him. Now she got another 150k. She had her HIGH PAYING job for all of a few months. She then QUIT, so that she could suck off this guy. Once he wouldn't sign away his entire life savings to this whore, she left and sued. The jury wasn't bored, they probably just sympathized with her a little. They probably thought, "Yeah, this guy's a schmuck" and unfortunately there probably is some little clause in the voluminous civil code which allows people to recover 'damages' in situations where a verbal promise or agreement has been suggested, either through statements or some sort of act such as giving someone a ring. But God help us if we start suing over break-ups. I've read several accounts of this story, which vary wildly from one to the next. But so far the most credible version of events is that she met this guy back in '01, started dating and then she asked him to marry her or expressed interest in getting married not long thereafter. That didn't happen and he backed out. It was after this that she got a new job in Pensacola earning about $81k a year, which is good money. She then started dating someone else and that's when this meat-head showed up again and started wanting to be back in her life. Understand she was already dating someone else, as in she was in another relationship. She dumped that guy in favor of this clown who had already said he didn't want to be married -- a scenario we've all seen before here on the LS message boards. She was probably dating a "nice guy" but dumped him for the classic jerk who stole her heart (and yeah, I'm sure the money didn't exactly hurt). So what happens? She dumps her boyfriend, leaves her job and goes back to this clown. And whaddya know...he gets cold feet again. Furthermore, the accounts I've read indicate that she had more than two-days' warning, and I have yet to read any credible news source on this matter which suggests that there was evidence indicating the man never had any intention to marry her. We might conclude that based on the ultimate outcome but I don't think that is something that has been substantiated. Yes, she was given a ring and yes he made promises -- and he's a schmuck for being evasive and indecisive and all that -- but come on...it wasn't like she didn't have warning that this guy was not exactly the most reliable character on earth. She just got pissed because she's some high society skank who believes that only other women could be so dumb as to fall for men like this, that she's too good to get dumped. It's this whole "I deserve the world" mentality upon which modern American feminism is based. That's probably why she dumped the poor bastard who actually cared for her, because he wasn't good enough and she 'deserved' more. And that's why she sued the ***clown...she "deserved" more. I understand how, on the one hand, she might feel 'bent' -- anyone would in this situation. I understand it if she felt like she could trust him even though common sense would tell the casual observer otherwise. I understand that she felt like an idiot, but I'm sorry, inviting the legal system into relationships is a really, really, really bad precedent. If we start going down that road, nobody is going to want to date anymore. I'd be fine with some minor compensatory damages in this kind of situation, but a full-on civil case with punitive damages? Waaaay over the top. You know what would be funny? It would be funny if the guy she dumped for this guy turned around and sued this woman. Now THAT would be funny.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I don't see what the big deal is, whether you believe she is entitled to sue or not, I don't think personally attacking these two people is really appropriate. This has been stated again and again this is an extremely rare case and not every woman is going to go this route of suing. As I stated, and people chose to ignore, I personally would get the hell out of that city and the memories and get a high paying job elsewhere if I were her, I'm all about change and new beginnings. Forget suing, I wouldn't have the time or energy and wouldn't want to pay a lawyer for that process. The best revenge is moving on with your life.
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Well, he left her the note.. Then, they still lived together and dated for a few more months. It isn't like he left her at the altar. Perhaps he wasn't sure yet. They only lived together for 2 months. Maybe he noticed something. From his actions, it didnt seem like he was playing some big game. I didn't read anywhere that she lost money setting up a wedding. Or even if there was a wedding. According to one report I read, he had paid something like $30k of her debts, much of it credit card debt. He basically paid off her credit cards. She had more debts to pay off. Something tells me that the jury, which admittedly has more of the facts than we do, probably had no choice but to interpret the law and, somewhere in the law, there is some provision which says that someone can sue for damages in this kind of situation. Few people thought it would come to this but it did. And she won. I bet some of the jurors weren't thrilled with the law but they had to render a verdict.
Woggle Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 So she was the typical woman dumping her man to chase after some bad boy who played her in the end? If you ask me she deserves everything she got. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these women and I would bet any amount of money that the guy she dumped would have never done this to her and would have went out of his way to make her happy.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I sort of agree with that. An ex of mine once came out of the woodwork after he had dumped me a year before. He came out of the woodwork suddenly after I was seeing someone else. Well, I fell for it, and he hadn't changed. He was simply in it for the challenge, to see if he could get me back, seeing me with another guy bugged the hell out of him. Once he got me back, he really didn't want me. The challenge was gone. Marriage wasn't involved but this lady in this case, at her age, should have been more cautious of the true intentions of this guy.
Art_Critic Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Of course she is a gold digging whore. Can I ask you why exactly are referring to her as a whore ? She isn't a whore.. she isn't a gold digger either.. You remove all seriousness to your posts when you use language like that and I happen to disregard your posts because of it.. Of course he is going to appeal.. he and his attorney feel that there is reason for appeal. Something to note as well.. Some of the credit card debt he paid off was becuase she wasn't able to make her bills and expenses after the pay cut.. She also has racked up more debt because she is missing the 50k a year after the breakup.. He also asked her to move.. he also physically moved her.. drove the truck and moved her.. So he must've wanted her to move pretty badly... She won on a breach of contract.. and rightfully so... the guy might have realized that he signed up for more than he wanted but he didn't handle it properly and that he now has to pay for..
climbergirl Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Of course I was only half-joking before. Juries and the law are far from fallible. Like how is it that someone can spill hot coffee on themselves and get paid $2 million?! Maybe it's because the tort system in this country's messed up. And so is the dating system. I can understand it if she felt burned, but what kind of precedent are we setting if we allow people to recover damages for breakups? I think she's your typical Ameri-skank who's trying to get even with the Patriarchy. All I can say is American dudes are traveling around the world more and whenever they do, they usually leave their Ameri-scabs behind in favor of foreign girlfriends, and it's no wonder why. Foreign women treat them like men, and they only want to be treated like women in return. Being valued by their man is enough for most of the foreign women I've dated. Seriously, I doubt I'll ever date an American chick ever again -- a shag maybe but that's all. Why put up with the pretense of pseudo sophistication and the God forsaken chase, a routine in which Amerigirl pretends like she doesn't like you and will only pay attention to you when you ignore her and treat her like crap, but dumps your ass the moment you become "nice"??? Why put up living with someone who pretends to be confident, when in reality her "confidence" is just a masquerade for her deep seeded insecurities which will manifest themselves in time??? Ameri-chick will end up competing with her man and hating him when he scores a better job and earns a higher paycheck, but the moment she outdoes him??? She'll say she's "outgrown" her partner, look for someone who's a better "match" and say crap like "We were going in two different directions, he wouldn't change with me." She's never satisfied. Always wants more and more is never quite enough. Smart dudes look beyond our borders. My only point was this: Given that most of us are in agreement that the decision and suit were bs, that one-or at least I-has to hope/assume that there is more to the story than the snippets of information we have read. I would think that the men on the jury,especially, would be very aware of the ramifications (laying the groundwork for future lawsuits)in awarding a woman on such a frivilous lawsuit. I never said or meant to imply that jurors are infallible.
Woggle Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Most people are idiots so that is why she was awarded the money. Also many men are so quick to be chivalrous and gentlemenly that they would stab their own friends or family in the back just to impress a woman.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I don't excuse anyone racking up that much credit card debt, but I do agree with ART CRITIC that with her $81 K job she was more able to make payments and at that earning rate, it wouldn't have taken her long to pay it off herself. As far as having a 31k credit card debt in the first place, maybe she was in-between jobs before she landed her 81k job or a point in her life she was unemployed and had to rely on her credit card. Everything is up for consideration here and we can't really judge. As far as her being "in debt".....some debt I wouldn't consider being ridden with debt. Mortgage? Is that really debt to worry about? I have a few thousand dollars left to pay on my student loans. I have my car paid off, but in a couple years when I decide to buy a new car, I will have car payments. Debt is all really relative. If I were engaged to a guy, I wouldn't hold a car loan against him, unless he had an outrageously expensive car which was extremely beyond his means to won and he was having trouble making payments. Being in debt doesn't always mean it is "bad" debt.
amerikajin Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 I don't excuse anyone racking up that much credit card debt, but I do agree with ART CRITIC that with her $81 K job she was more able to make payments and at that earning rate, it wouldn't have taken her long to pay it off herself. As far as having a 31k credit card debt in the first place, maybe she was in-between jobs before she landed her 81k job or a point in her life she was unemployed and had to rely on her credit card. That she racked up credit card debt (even a lot of it) isn't the point -- that's her prerogative, and I agree that circumstances come into play which might force her to charge more. Then again, maybe she's really irresponsible, in which case her high salary wouldn't mean much. There are a lot of people with six figure salaries who attempt to live beyond their means. We just don't know, but the credit card debt and why she had so much of it isn't the issue. The reason I referred to the credit card debt is to show that this guy had already paid a lot of money to her throughout the relationship. I don't understand why he should pay her $150k in 'damages'. She made the choice and knew (or should have known) that it was a risk. There are no guarantees in engagement. I agree that, technically, the law might saw otherwise if you're able to find a good attorney who can argue to that effect, but it shouldn't be that way. I mean if they had lived together for a few years and collected assets together, I could definitely see needing the courts to resolve who gets what, as in a marriage -- that's reasonable. But suing for revenge just because she made a major life decision that didn't work out? Tough sh*t. That's life...or at least it used to be. As I've said, I once basically gave up a career for a woman. I saw that she had a controlling and manipulative side to her that I didn't see while we were dating in different cities. Should I have sued her because I didn't see this until I moved in? I mean where does it end? I mean, hell, I might even be more sympathetic if this had been a case of a prince charming who never gave her any indication that he might flake and then just left her standing at the altar and later revealed he was just playing some kind of prank and never had any intention to marry her, but from what I can tell, that's not what happened here. He flaked out, and while I can understand she's upset, she could have seen this coming. It's a tough lesson to learn but she's not entitled to $150k of his money. It's a sad day for people who want to date and see where things lead...like most people do in the pre-marital phase of a relationship.
BUENG1 Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Yeah, I was pretty much getting at the same thing, I don't think that it is usual that someone would sue. Had I found myself in the exact position as this woman, like I said, I'm all about dusting myself off and getting the hell out of dodge and finding an even better job somewhere else. However as Grogster and Art Critic have both pointed out, there is reason to believe that this man was purposefully manipulative and deceptive. Also, it was apparently within her right, this guy wanted to settle with her, so he must have known his actions weren't all on the up and up in the situation. If he felt he was completely innocent and without ownership at all in the situation, he wouldn't have had his lawyer agree to settle. Like I said, I personally would not have gone the route of hiring a lawyer, I would be putting the whole thing behind me as soon as possible, but it was apparently within this woman's right to take legal action and she did it. He didn't settle, he went to court and lost.
Art_Critic Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Ok, can you please stop posting on this thread as you keep illustrating you have no idea what you are talking about. .. says the guy who has called the woman a whore on the whole thread If you lose a court case, you aren't "settling" lol. So there goes your entire theory that he knew his actions weren't right so he wanted to "settle".. He tried to settle before court he offered her a settlement amount of money.. She turned down his offer and took him to court.. I think what the poster was basically meaning is that his offer infers guilt of some sort.. It could.. I guess it all depends on the amount.. if the amount was what he would spent on attorney's fees then to me it wouldn't but if the amount was quite a bit higher than the fees then to me it would infer guilt.. We can't know for sure.. but he did tried and settle it with an offer before court..
Art_Critic Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Where did you get that information. What was the settlement offer? And by the way you said ... Boy.. you don't read the links posted do you ? I posted this same link earlier in the thread and to think you know what you are talking about http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/archive/7296/ The jury award was "significantly higher" than an amount Shell said she would accept during pre-trial settlement discussions, Sartain said. There are other links to basically the same info.. the amounts of the offers are not disclosed.. I don't see anything with trying to settle.. I would and I think some judges make you try and settle it first before trying it in court..
Art_Critic Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Both parties showed questionable judgment, I think this is very true... I personally think she should've just walked it off.. but she didn't...
BUENG1 Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 You don't get it, he tried to settle with her. She didn't accept his offer and then it went to court. The fact that he tried to settle with her shows that he didn't have any confidence that he would win because he knew of his actions, and he knew they weren't all on the up and up...otherwise he would have had complete confidence and wouldn't have wanted to try to settle. No I do get it. The article says she was offered before the trial. No where does it say he tried to settle with her out of court.
BUENG1 Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 AC As I said, the discussion could have been her asking for 10k, and he said kiss my ass. Yea exactly, so where in that scenario did he offer to settle with her in court?
Art_Critic Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 I would and I think some judges make you try and settle it first before trying it in court.. A pre trial settlement discussion is a settlement offer before trying it in court..OUT OF COURT No I do get it. The article says she was offered before the trial. No where does it say he tried to settle with her out of court. A pre trial settlement discussion is a settlement offer before trying it in court..OUT OF COURT AC Please work on your reading comprehension. Do you think the above means he tried to settle? lolololol I don't need to review my reading comprehension.. you on the other hand do.. I have done nothing but keep posting info for you who seems to not get it.. Have you ever been in a civil suit before ?.. If you had you would not be making the off the cuff posts you have about pre trial settlement discussion.. As I posted earlier.. some judges require it.. some don't.. and if you read my post on the offers you would have seen that I said I didn't think it infered guilt Yea exactly, so where in that scenario did he offer to settle with her in court? A pre trial settlement discussion is a settlement offer before trying it in court..OUT OF COURT I do believe I'm done with the intelligent posting on this thread .. I've given everything I have to bring to the discussion table.. Art - Off to work on my reading and learning what I'm talking about... While I don't claim to be an expert like Grogster I have been thru several civil lawsuit trials both as the plaintiff and defendant..
Dark-N-Romantic Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Art, how many times does this happen to guys? The women go along with the program all the way up until its time and then decide to run because they knew they wasn't going to go through with it? You think the man can sue for any debts he racked up because he she decided to leave? Nope. Even in small claims court they are laughed out of there. And I looked a various websites, only Shell's lawyer said Gibbs never intended to marry her. And Lovely, it was not a personal attack, but a personal observation about such people in general. Now if you found yourself in it... I can't help that. And I gladly claim the title jerk because people only call me that when I am on the right track. This is the biggest problem I have with this case, its all he said she said. We don't know if she really told him about all her debts or if he didn't. What if she did and he really gave it some thought and realized he would not be able to cover it? And then the next question would be, when can a man or woman decline a wedding proposal and then change their mind without fear of being liable for suit? At least Wayne Gibbs is smart, he is appealing the decision. God be with him. DNR
sweetbutcheeky Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 All I can say is I wished I had heard of that before my ex fiance walked away 3 weeks before the wedding!
amerikajin Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 However as Grogster and Art Critic have both pointed out, there is reason to believe that this man was purposefully manipulative and deceptive. Also, it was apparently within her right, this guy wanted to settle with her, so he must have known his actions weren't all on the up and up in the situation. If he felt he was completely innocent and without ownership at all in the situation, he wouldn't have had his lawyer agree to settle. Maybe he didn't want to go through the legal process. Maybe he didn't want his name dragged out into the public spotlight to resolve what he -- and what any reasonable person -- would consider to be a private matter. As it is now, some journalist scouring the court docket (no doubt tipped off by this vindictive wench and her attorney) picked up on this story and now they've taken him out and dragged his name through the mud. It's also rather expensive to defend yourself in a lawsuit, and it doesn't matter how confident you feel about a case: just knowing that you could lose is enough to motivate most reasonable people to attempt a settlement out of court.
Recommended Posts