Judge Awards Settlement To Woman Left Standing At The Altar

[Athena]

Well, not literally. It's was more like a note left in the bathroom three days before the wedding breaking off the engagement.

When RoseMary Shell and her boyfriend, Wayne Gibbs, decided to make things official, Shell moved to be with him - and she left A LOT behind. She nobely took a pay cut of over $50,000/year, going from $81,000 (plus 15% bonus) to $31,000. On top of this, she's been left with no house, no car, no health or life insurance, and she says her credit is questionable due to the circumstances of the move.

But it gets even better...She found out that he had been seeing another woman during their engagement.

So, she did what any business person might do - she filed suit. She wanted comensation for her monetary losses and emotional damage, and the jury of 12 men and women, split evenly, agreed with her. She was awarded $150,000 for what boiled down to breach of contract.

While Gibbs' lawyer made himself unavailable for comment, he did say this in closing argument: "You would be sending the message that if you have a dispute with somebody and you think they have been a scoundrel, go get a lawyer and hope the Brinks truck backs up to the jury room," according to the Gainesville Times. "If you award one penny, you're saying, 'file frivolous lawsuits.'"

Source

What do YOU think? Breach of contract, or frivolous lawsuit?

[SNOOKIE]

I say get over it

[Athena]

Really? You don't think she deserves any financial compensation?

I disagree, in this case. An engagement is, essentially, a verbal contract, and this woman acted in good faith to fulfill her end of things, making financial concessions. If you were offered a job over the phone that required you to move, but you were responsible for relocation costs, and the company you were set to work for changed their mind after you incurred all that cost, you wouldn't just think, "oh well," would you? I don't see how this is any different.

[MISSanthropic]

I don't find this to be frivolous by any means. I believe that frivolous may be if she was suing solely on emotional damage because, hell, I have been subjected to plenty of that in relationships. But when combined with the monetary damage that she certainly did endure, and especially the fact that he was cheating during this entire ordeal, it is a different story

I know similar situations may occur all the time, but in this case the woman acted upon it and proved that because of him she lost a substantial amount of her salary, had no car or home, no insurance, and had a blow to her credit.

They were engaged, indeed a verbal contract.

breach of mother fuckin' contract.

[Gilbrit]

It's the beginning of yet another slippery slope...

By allowing the courts to resolve complaints like this, we, as a society allow precedants to be established, creating "bad law".
1. She is given an award due to the fiance' backing out.
2. Now if the fiance' says "yes" to the marriage and she says "no", Under the same precedant set by his fiance' he can also sue for breach of contract and loss of income gained by combining wages and future tax deductions.

**What is preventing her from going back to the old employer and asking for her job back? If she was as good as her paycheck denotes, they'd be lining up to get her back. Could it be possible that her old job just downsized and she would have been cut had she stayed?**

Mind you, this is all mental masterbation but I am not tying up the courts time with it.:tongue1:

[Athena]

It's the beginning of yet another slippery slope...

By allowing the courts to resolve complaints like this, we, as a society allow precedants to be established, creating "bad law".
1. She is given an award due to the fiance' backing out.
2. Now if the fiance' says "yes" to the marriage and she says "no", Under the same precedant set by his fiance' he can also sue for breach of contract and loss of income gained by combining wages and future tax deductions.

**What is preventing her from going back to the old employer and asking for her job back? If she was as good as her paycheck denotes, they'd be lining up to get her back. Could it be possible that her old job just downsized and she would have been cut had she stayed?**

Mind you, this is all mental masterbation but I am not tying up the courts time with it.:tongue1:

You know, the "slippery slope" argument definitely crossed my mind and, I suppose we'll see...But here's my counter to that take -

Civil law is more case-by-case basis than criminal court. There's precedent, but that's about it. No mandatory minimums, and the jury (or judge, depending) carefully weighs all the elements of each individual case. In lots of civil suits, you have to be able to prove monetary loss. That's why I don't think a decision like this would apply to possible future financial gains of marriage. Engagement doesn't entitle you to those things. Marriage is new, even more legally binding contract that does cover those elements (i.e., alimony). Suing for something you never had and were never guaranteed isn't really possible.

As for your other question - It's possible, but more likely that 1.) they already filled her position or 2.) she can't bring herself to return (humiliation was mentioned in her claim).

[Harley_Tech]

But it gets even better...She found out that he had been seeing another woman during their engagement.

So, she did what any business person might do - she filed suit. She wanted compensation for her monetary losses and emotional damage, and the jury of 12 men and women, split evenly, agreed with her. She was awarded $150,000 for what boiled down to breach of contract.

What do YOU think? Breach of contract, or frivolous lawsuit?

I say good for her and screw him. He entered into a contract that basically said he was committed to her and only her. That was not entered into in good faith and she deserves to get what she got out of him.

Wouldn't it be funny if her old job took her back after all this? LMAO

Wouldn't it be ever funnier if his job found out about it and fired him for a lack of character

R

[Rotten Apple]

Athena, what is the difference between this and alimony?

She CHOSE to put herself in that position by accepting marriage proposal and completely rearranging her life for this person correct? Isn't this the risk she accepted?

A marriage is more than a verbal contract, it is a legally binding contract.

Your arguments in both cases seem contradictory to me.

[Dr. Salvador]

i think she does deserve something. i also think alimony is deserved in cases. while the woman does have to accept some responsibilty for making such dumb choices, she was basically "swindeled" by this guy. sounds like those guys who marry women and take em for all their money, except he made her lose the money before he married her. what a tool.

[ImmortalOne]

I have to agree with Kathy. These are choices SHE made, no one made for her. "Any relationship is a risk, and until they are officially married there is no "contract" verbal or otherwise. Perhaps suing for 1/2 of the wedding costs or whatever maybe, however everything else was well in her power to NOT DO. So I have to feel that this is rather silly for her to sue for.

[Pete Bondurant]

This is why I only date women who are already married.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Written or verbal, a contract is a contract. In most jurisdictions, an engagement is a contract.

Valid contracts are always entered into under the "free will" of both parties. I was not coerced into my home loan. If I decide I just don't want my house for some reason, the bank will still hold me to the contract. I knew what I was getting into when I accepted the terms. The bank also can't just cancel the contract if all terms are being met.

Same with my verbal engagement contract. Lucky for me that the terms of that contract were met and I then entered into a marriage contract with my husband. Had he broken the engagement, I would have sued him for breach for provable monetary damages. If he breaks our marriage contract, I will take out another type of contract on him :)

What this lady did was based in "good faith". There was a meeting of the minds on what those terms entailed. She obviously proved to the courts that she was caused monetary damages based on the engagement contract.

Another article says:

Juror Delita Smith said after the trial that the jury decided on the amount by calculating one year of Shell’s old salary working as a human resources manager at a newspaper company in Pensacola, counting a 15 percent annual bonus and benefits valued at up to $40,000.
...
Judge Kathlene Gosselin instructed the panel during her jury charge that "breach of promise to marry is a common law contract action."

"By the very nature of the action, there must be an actual promise to marry and acceptance of that promise before one can be held liable for a breach," the judge told the jury.

I think the award was fair and the case far from frivolous. They didn't award emotional damages or punitive amounts. (My not-a-lawyer side thinks emotional/punitive would probably only been awarded if she could have proved fraud.) The time frame used to calculate damages (one year) was not excessive and was apparently provable as damages.

Again, a contract is a contract. Just because a situation is full of emotional reasons does not negate the fact that both parties entered into a contract situation. This case is about contract law and not about how stupid the woman was (which I think she was).

[Athena]

Athena, what is the difference between this and alimony?

She CHOSE to put herself in that position by accepting marriage proposal and completely rearranging her life for this person correct? Isn't this the risk she accepted?

A marriage is more than a verbal contract, it is a legally binding contract.

Your arguments in both cases seem contradictory to me.

The difference in my eyes? There are two.

One being that she incurred actual loss, and was not seeking compensation for assumed future damages. The second being the whole "in good faith" thing. This man pretty clearly never intended to marry this woman, so his actions display an element of maliciousness. It would be hard to prove in an alimony case that an individual caused their spouse significant financial loss with no intent to stay married to them. If they could, however, I'd be all for that particular alimony settlement.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but, to me, "We tried and it didn't work out" is far different than "I was intentionally duped." Just like a business venture. If two partners suffer a failed business, I don't think the wealthier partner should have to help support the less fortunate partner for a period of time. If one partner swindled the other, however, he should be financially accountable.

That being said, again, I'm not against ALL alimony. If a spouse CANNOT support him or herself for a period, alimony should be awarded. I'm just against indefinite "lifestyle" alimony.

[Rotten Apple]

One being that she incurred actual loss, and was not seeking compensation for assumed future damages. The second being the whole "in good faith" thing. This man pretty clearly never intended to marry this woman, so his actions display an element of maliciousness. It would be hard to prove in an alimony case that an individual caused their spouse significant financial loss with no intent to stay married to them. If they could, however, I'd be all for that particular alimony settlement.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but, to me, "We tried and it didn't work out" is far different than "I was intentionally duped." Just like a business venture. If two partners suffer a failed business, I don't think the wealthier partner should have to help support the less fortunate partner for a period of time. If one partner swindled the other, however, he should be financially accountable.

That being said, again, I'm not against ALL alimony. If a spouse CANNOT support him or herself for a period, alimony should be awarded. I'm just against indefinite "lifestyle" alimony.

What actual losses did she incur? She lost earning potential, but not actual earnings. She had not earned any of that money yet.

As far as the house and everything, she would have to provide all that for herself anyway wouldn't she? She was not married to him. She knew she had to rights to any of that stuff legally.

I don't believe we were talking about lifestyle alimony in the other thread. I never agreed with that either. We were talking about women who could not support themselves after marriage because of being stay at home mothers and the like. You said it was the risk they took and the other partner should not have to support them.

Maybe I need to go back and read again, but that was the impression I got from you.

[Athena]

What actual losses did she incur? She lost earning potential, but not actual earnings. She had not earned any of that money yet.

As far as the house and everything, she would have to provide all that for herself anyway wouldn't she? She was not married to him. She knew she had to rights to any of that stuff legally.

I don't believe we were talking about lifestyle alimony in the other thread. I never agreed with that either. We were talking about women who could not support themselves after marriage because of being stay at home mothers and the like. You said it was the risk they took and the other partner should not have to support them.

Maybe I need to go back and read again, but that was the impression I got from you.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought they compensated her for a period she had worked at the lower wage, rather than future earnings. That's part of what my opinion was based on.

Furthermore, another impression I got was that this man never actually intended to marry her, which was the scam.

Now, these may both be incorrect assumptions, on my part. If I'm incorrect, and they're crediting her for future wages, and the man had just met the woman he was cheating with, then I would disagree with the settlement. In my mind, the judgment rests on the premise of an ingenuine guarantee.

Similarly, if a wife (or husband) was able to prove that his or her spouse never intended to stay married, but risks were taken based on the guarantee that intent to stay married was there, I would wholeheartedly agree with an alimony settlement.

As far as the old alimony discussion goes, I may have to look back through it as well, but my general opinion of alimony is that it is justified when a spouse cannot support him or herself. This differs from "will not" or "cannot support him or herself at the same level".

[Jaded]

Maybe she has started a trend?

On the heels of an unusual if not unprecedented court victory for a jilted bride, another Hall County woman has filed a suit for breach of contract against her former fiance.

Wendy Louise Webb filed the lawsuit against Bradley Collins on Friday morning in Hall County Superior Court. She claims he asked her to marry him on Christmas Day 2006 but never followed through on his promise.

On July 18, Collins applied for a criminal trespass warrant against Webb, an indication that he didn’t want to marry her anymore, according to the suit.

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/7360/

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Copy of suit in most recent case: http://media.morristechnology.com/me...JILTED2DOC.pdf

In December 2007, a year after they were engaged, the guy in this case "gave to Plaintiff a beautifully wrapped package as a Christmas present. Upon Plaintiff's opening of the present, it contained the plans for their wedding, which was to be August 30, 2008. Plaintiff agreed with Defendant's hand-written plan without objection."

I think that sounds creepy weird.