http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16966088/detail.html
Jilted Bride Awarded $150K After Wedding Called Off
POSTED: 12:53 pm EDT July 23, 2008
UPDATED: 6:44 pm EDT July 23, 2008
HALL COUNTY, Ga. — The jury has awarded a Hall County woman $150,000 after she sued her former fiance for calling their wedding off. RoseMary Shell sued her ex-fiance, Wayne Gibbs, after he broke off their engagement in 2007. Shell argued her fiance’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs and she said she has suffered financial losses since their break-up. She also said she has suffered emotionally.
Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom.Closing arguments were heard Wednesday morning and the jury awarded Shell $150,000 by Wednesday afternoon. “People shouldn’t be allowed to do that and hopefully he’ll think twice before he does it to someone else,” said Shell.
Copyright 2008 by WSBTV.com.
No man is safe anywhere in this world.
I do not know if the judge in this case was a woman. What I do know is that this woman should have her face plastered on every dating site in America, along with this article.
She should be blacklisted, blackballed, or whatever the new term happens to be.
Casinos have lists of cheating gamblers. Stock brokerage firms have the names of crooked clients.
Men need to know who this woman is so that she never gets another date ever again.
A promise of happily ever after is not a binding contract. It is a goal.
I had an ex who once got upset because I promised to always “be good and take care of her.”
How many men, upon breaking up with a woman, find out that they are telling their girlfriends that the man was not good in bed. Should the man sue the woman for lying either during the relationship or after the breakup?
I know some people will want to hear the woman’s side of the story. She has no side.
Somebody sterilize this woman immediately. Otherwise she will bring a daughter into this world, most likely through in vitro fertilization, that will be as screwed up as she is.
She said that the breakup caused her emotional pain. That is what breakups do. It is called disappointment.
Luckily for this woman there are judges whose parents were not sterilized in time either.
Unless this case is reversed on appeal, it will do for romance what the KKK did for race relations.
We now live in a world where a woman can sleep with a man, have regrets the next day, and file charges.
If a man uses alcohol or drugs to influence a woman, that is…and should be…a crime. If a man uses sweet talk, and is what used to be referred to as a “cad,” that is not a crime. Unethical behavior is not necessarily illegal. It is not a crime to be a “meanie,” a “not-nice-nik,” or a “baddie.”
What happened to women who would just eat chocolate ice cream, gab with their girlfriends, and be done with it?
The NOW, Gloria Allred, and every other female activist needs to condemn this ruling. Perhaps they could care about relevant issues, such as honor killings and other third world savagery towards women.
No, instead some white collar woman eases a broken heart by seeking revenge.
So what if she coarsens society? So what if it causes some men to delay married life until 10 prenups are signed in triplicate? She feels better, consequences to others be d@mned.
I want to make it clear that I am not blaming an entire gender for this crackpot.
However, the feminist movement has helped shape this train wreck. So has the American culture of lawsuits. Also, liberal judges that are more concerned with feelings than actual law are ripping at the fabric of this nation.
There is nothing for men to do in this situation except to hide money, keep off shore bank accounts, and run at the first sign of lunacy.
I am lucky and blessed to be dating a woman that is not a basket case.
Some of my exes were basket cases. I did what any man would do in that situation. I ran. I also let them know why. I told them flat out that I don’t date basket cases. That may seem ice cold, but it is not my job to solve the problems of others.
If I am married, and my wife develops an illness, that is different. Yet when a woman starts crying because of the Ozone Layer, or the Wetlands, a man has to have the spine to let them know that he just does not care.
Nothing is guaranteed. People who promise to love each other should keep that promise. However, things happen.
This is life.
Men should be more gentlemanly. Women should stop being basket cases.
Terrorists should stop blowing things up. Lots of things should happen.
Judges should follow the law.
I have no answers at this point. I have only questions.
I am sure of only one thing.
No man is safe.
eric
“A promise of happily ever after is not a binding contract.”
It’s a little more complicated than that, and the man in question here may be able to reverse this on appeal – it all depends on the courts and the state.
Engagement can be legally interpretted as a contract. Various courts view this in various ways. An interesting reverse of your example would be the age-old ‘engagement ring’ issue. When a man gives a woman an engagement ring, some courts view this as a promisory of marraige. Therefore, if the man breaks the engagement, the woman is entitled to keep the ring, whereas if the woman breaks the engagement, the man is entitled to receive the ring back, or it’s equivalent value (search “engagement ring” in FindLaw and you’ll see what I’m talking about). Again, though, various courts and various states have various interpretations of this.
Now, in this case, the court apparently found that the engagement was a binding oral contract.
Here’s a more detailed story: http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=118980&catid=3
(wow! “11Alive”!!! Do you remember when NY station 11 used to use that slogan??? I didn’t know that old network still existed!)
“Shell says when he said he wasn’t interested in marriage she moved to Pensacola, Florida and started a lucrative new job earning $81,000 a year plus bonuses and benefits. Then Gibbs showed up.
“He asked me to marry him. He gave me a ring and I gave up my life and my career and I came back to Gainesville. He told me he would pay my bills, that we would be married by the holidays and we would live happily ever after. I believed him,” said Shell.
But two days before the wedding, she says Gibbs left her a goodbye note saying he couldn’t go through with the wedding. He also wrote her a $5,000 dollar check. She says she tore up both and instead sued him for breach of contract.
Shell’s lawyer, former Hall County District Attorney Lydia Sartain, successfully argued before a jury that Gibbs owed Shell what she’d lost in salary plus pain and suffering.
“He callously allowed her to quit her job, move back and into his house where she had no income and then after a couple of months he just put her out on the streets and said ‘you know you’re on your own’,” said Sartain.”
Viewed in these lights, the claim and decision make more sense. I don’t know what the exact laws are in GA, so I don’t know if this decision would stand up to appeal, but if at least the precedent is there, then this decision makes sense and will stand.
JMJ
Yea, so she gives the ring back and this “verbal contract” is cancelled.
I think an engagement basically says “we have to maintain the person we represent between now and the time we get married”
Also not to make commitments to anyone else from this point on so we can focus on what life with just the two of us would be like.
Should either one go screwing around ? If shes a virgin , should she maintain that virginity until the wedding ? Does each of the have to prove the image they have projected ?
Now, if infedelity is shown during the engagement or financial irresponsability/fraud or some hidden character defect surfaces then yoiu had the time to discover this while maintaining a minimal commitment to each other.
But this case is bull. He used the engagement period as I described above in order to discover that this move would not be in his best interest.
Jeez, the guy already paid off some debt for her without the commitment of marriage.
And this “emotional hardship” being used as a defense is just an example of the ridiculous “bubble wrapping” of everything human we see happening in our society and what people should have to deal with on normal terms. Its called “LIFE”!! And “GETTING DUMPED “!!
Idiot never should of quit her job anyway.
Whats next ?
” He wasnt as endowed as I thought he was supposed to be, and so I would like to sue him at 50,000.00 for every inch that I thought was supposed to be there” ?
Yea, O.K. ! Are those real honey ?
And if a topless dancers breast are fake can we tip them with monopoly money ?
It really doesn’t matter what you guys “think.” Different courts in different jurisdictions and states interpret of the legal status of engagement in different ways. If in GA the laws and/or precedents are such that engagement is a legally binding contract with certain conditions that are met in this claim, then the woman is in the right and the decision is correct. End of story.
If you ask me, the guy got what he deserved. But again, it doesn’t matter what I “think.”
JMJ
Well then Eric should just take down the post.
It matters what people think because if crap like this gets put up front enough then maybe we can put a stop to it. Through exposure of injustice laws get changed.
So really, it matters very much what people think when it comes to laws.
This is why we bring new laws to the books, ya know, like tougher child predator laws ??
This an example of the law trying to impose what it believes to be proper morales and ethics in an area it has no business.
Like I said before but I’ll clean it up a little.
When we are able to start suing people because our relationships dont go the way we like we coming dangerously close to legislating what one certain sect believes to proper ethics and morales.
Yea, in certain states you have examples in the law where the ring must be given back or under common law relationships property must be dividedc up. But this chick sued just because she was pissed.
She already got the guy for 30,000.00 and a bunch of trips so I dont see why it isnt him who wants some of that back.
Got what he deserved ?
Please tell me what this guy did to deserve being ripped off ?
Micky, the point I was making is that what we “think” has no bearing on the legal decision. Opinions are all well and fine, but from what I read about the case, the guy really screwed-over the woman and so in my mind he deserved what he got. He was a creep. He ripped her off, not the other way around. The woman gave up an 81K job with good benefits for a promise that was reneged. That’s pretty lowly. If it was a divorce, he’d have lost a lot more than just 150K.
Again though, I don’t know what the legal implications of engagement are in GA and really couldn’t imagine wasting my time looking them up.
JMJ
This may surprise you, Eric, coming from a woman, but I agree with you.
I don’t think that this should be a legal matter at all. Good grief, the law is into everything. I don’t think an engagement should be looked at as a contract and should not be thought of as “binding”. It is the marriage that should be legal and binding, not the engagement. People who get engaged change their minds all the time! If I had been this woman I would have considered myself blessed that I didn’t marry someone who would break up with me by leaving a note in the bathroom (coward’s way out, and who wants to marry a coward?) but I would not have taken it to court. I would have taken it to be a valuable lesson learned and recouped my financial losses by going back to work.
Everyone sues everyone in today’s society and it sucks! The people on that jury should be ashamed of themselves and so should that woman. But of course none of them will feel any shame whatsoever.
The man should be ashamed too. He should have had enough cajones to break up with her to her face, but it wasn’t against the law to leave a note, at least not as far as I know. How many men have sued their fiances after getting dear john letters. The entire thing is absolute stupidity!
“Micky, the point I was making is that what we “think” has no bearing on the legal decision. ”
I get that, did you notice ?
“If it was a divorce, he’d have lost a lot more than just 150K.”
IF ?
Wel it wasnt.
And shes an idiot for quiting her job.
Was that a condition of the engagement ?
What about the 30,000.00 dollars ?
Hell ! Thats a nice set of wheels.
What promise ????
I dont know about you but last I checked promises are not made untill the wedding day.
RIGHT ???
And let me remind you ole buddy that its you who expects your opinion to usually be the nail in the coffin but this time opnions dont matter ?
Well in that case just about everything you said about Bush is just an opinion because you dont really know the merits and he has never seen a courtroom ever concerning any of your allegations and accusations against him.
And so why discuss it ?
It’s a tough one, Micky. I don’t know the laws and precedents in GA, so I’m a little out of my league here, but I am pretty well-read on the law in general for a lay-person. From what I know engagements can and often are considered conditionally binding oral agreements – contracts.
If the “engagement ring” example isn’t enough, let’s try this: Let’s say a woman’s family puts 20K up front for a wedding and reception and the groom runs off 5 minutes before the wedding leaving them on the hook for the whole amount. In many states, that family could claim a breach of contract and sue the groom for the costs of the wedding and reception and sometimes even further damages (maybe the embarrassment of cancelling the wedding, distress to the bride, etc). There can be more to an engagement than just a “promise of happily ever.” You guys have to start seeing the bigger pictures.
As for her bills that he paid, she could easily have paid those bills herself with an 81k+perks job. So I would find, if anything, because she apparently had further debts, and he negated her ability to satisfy them, that he should then pay those debts as he orally promised – at least those debts he knew of including those debts she reasonably could have paid had she married him as he promised. That would be only fair.
Now I know why I have such a strong disregard for conservative judges. You guys just don’t see big pictures, let alone dispassionate interpretation of law!
And Gaylea, it’s easy to bash lawyers and litigation – until one day you need to file suit. Then you’d thank you’re lucky stars we live in a country where people are as free to sue as be sued.
JMJ
Marriage and betrothal are common law contracts dating from long before we were a nation. They have evolved over many years as people and social mores changed.
Formerly it was a religious contract that the state decided to recognize (and control.)
Marriages were arranged by the family (mostly fathers.) That has changed, in the western world – not in the islamic world.
Once women couldn’t own property. It was the husbands who had control of all marital assets. That has changed, again more in the west than in islam.
Customs here have evolved to the point that an engagement doesn’t have the force of law. The ring was a symbol of the contract, and remained the property of the man until the marriage. It becomes the property of the woman when the marriage becomes valid. (Sanctioned by the state.)
Things become muddier in this age where women not only have the right to their own property, but may spend many years accumulating property (and/or debt) before marriage. Women also lack the enforcement ability that a family arrangement of the match would give. When we decided to marry for love/lust instead of because daddy said so, we gave that up (or should have.)
These days any woman who decides to marry a man who is reluctant and gives up her hard-won independent income should do it with her eyes open and remember that the courts are NOT daddy.
I wish the courts would also remember that they are not daddy or nanny and that adults have the responsibility to do their homework before entering into life-changing contracts. There is way to much meddling and social tinkering done in the courts, and social mores should evolve naturally and slowly – not with the stroke of a pen by some guy who thinks he knows better than 4,000 years of history.
“You guys just don’t see big pictures,’
Really, I’ve tried being nice lately but you’re pushing it.
Stop doubting other peoples intelligence in one manner or another just because we have different views.
It makes you look like the less intelligent one.
All I see is entitlement mentallity.
if he bails on the wedding thats different. but thats all he should pay for and out of common decency should let her keep the ring.
She was in debt and he paid a 30,000.00 bill for her so I dont know how great her job could of been.
I see nothing in the article that says he orally promised to pay for anything.
————————————————————————————–
“Shell argued her fiance’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. ”
Oh really ???
This broad needs to get out more often
————————————————————————————–
“He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding .
Oh my god !
Its only obvious that he didnt know about all this debt before !
It looks more to me like she quit her job in anticipation of him clearing all her debt once they were married !
————————————————————————————-
This adds up to her being nothing more than a mooching griffter who got caught.
(shes kinda urguly too)
And by the way, about Gaylea.
She said nothing about lawyers , nor did she bash them.
And she did not bash litigation or the system either. all she said was that the jury should be ashamed of themselves.
Really man, come on, that was way way off.
“Customs here have evolved to the point that an engagement doesn’t have the force of law.”
Again, this is WRONG. Engagement in many states and jurisdictions DOES have legal implications. Where the heck have you all been???
I’m sorry guys, but I’m beginning to think that you conservatives don’t have the slightest understanding of US law.
And Micky, if you were that woman, and you were as slighted as she, you’d be as litigiously inclined as her, I’m sure, if you could. Imagine, you leave a good job, leave your debts and obligations to some schmuck who promises to satisfy those obligations, and then find yourself without any recourse but for the law to satisfy those obligations! What the heck could you do???
Misogynistic cons. Typical.
JMJ
( you say you dont knowGA law or the merits of the case but you’ve already decided?)
Which is it ?
You doing with opnion or what you know legally as some surrogate council ?
How was she slighted ? Because shes ugly ?
Thats all I can think of becuse it seems the guy treated her pretty good untill he had to find out the hard way that all he was marrying was a stack of bills
I am not that woman.
I wouldnt be so stupid so as to quit my job if I was in as much debt as her and had to have my fiance` paying off my debt.
Shes either an idiot or a hustler.
There you go again, calling people names. saying that we dislike women just because we see injustice.
Its beggining to look like trying to bring things up a level with you is proving me to look like a fool.
Can I sue you ?
I had such high expectations !
Micky, do you have any quality legal argumant here?
JMJ
Thats a stupid question.
Are you a lawyer ?
Could you present a quality legal argument here ?
Erics post might give you a hint as to the direction things were going.
It was written with the context of our percieved rights and wrongs and how wee see the situation.
He didnt go into the legalities.
And you your self said you dont know georgia law so I hardly see how you could put up a decent argument.
Do you call this a good legal arguement ?
“And Micky, if you were that woman, and you were as slighted as she, you’d be as litigiously inclined as her, I’m sure, if you could. Imagine, you leave a good job, leave your debts and obligations to some schmuck who promises to satisfy those obligations, and then find yourself without any recourse but for the law to satisfy those obligations! What the heck could you do???”
To top it off there is no mention in the article you supplied that mentions what if any of the laws are that apply to either one of them in this case.
She says she was suing for breach of contract but you inaccurately say that the court apparently found that the engagement was a binding oral contract.
“Now, in this case, the court apparently found that the engagement was a binding oral contract.’
It doers not say that in the article. It just says contract.
It may seem pedantic and semantic to you but it makes my point that you really don’t know any more about the facts than I do. It actually could of been a written contract stemming to a pre nuptual agreement.
So, neither one of us could make a quality legal argument.
Also because we don’t know the value of the ring, which it does not say in the article either , you and I could not determine if the award was sufficient to cover her loss.
Once again, this would prevent you and I from making a quality legal argument.
JMJ;
“Again though, I don’t know what the legal implications of engagement are in GA and really couldn’t imagine wasting my time looking them up.”
This also would prevent you from making a quality legal argument.
So, as I stated in the first two lines in my first comment on this;
“Yea, so she gives the ring back and this “verbal contract” is canceled.
I think an engagement basically says “we have to maintain the person we represent between now and the time we get married”
I was talking from my perspective and opinion to which you answered “it doesn’t matter what I think.”
Now to the point.
Why doesn’t it matter what we think when its evident from the beginning of the thread neither one of us knew what all the facts were so how could we even have a conversation on the merits of the law in Georgia ?
At that point all we are left with to discuss this subject would be opinionated material.
Which you did not hesitate to contribute by saying;
JMJ;
This guy got what he deserved”
JMJ;
“Misogynistic cons. Typical.”
JMJ;
” Now I know why I have such a strong disregard for conservative judges. You guys just don’t see big pictures, let alone dispassionate interpretation of law!”
JMJ;
“And Gaylea, it’s easy to bash lawyers and litigation – until one day you need to file suit. Then you’d thank you’re lucky stars we live in a country where people are as free to sue as be sued. ”
(which was an untrue accusation that you didnt apologize for)
So , as you can see you are just ripe with opinion but when others come in with their opinion you chicken out of the conversation because morally you don’t agree with us and then fall back on some weasely position that asks me if I have a quality legal argument here.
Nobody said anything derogatory or even slightly abrasive to you and yet you unleashed a little nastiness, snobbery and arrogance on us by calling us misogynist, saying we need to see bigger pictures along with this statement that just wreaks of conceit and BS so bad you can smell it from where I’m at
“You guys just don’t see big pictures, let alone dispassionate interpretation of law!”
Oh ! So now you’re a lawyer too ?
You are able to interpret the law in Georgia that you know nothing about dispassionately ????
Once again Jersey.
I invited you to take things up a notch a few days ago and asked that we both grow up and stop with the dumb exchanges.
as much as I’ve tried a few times already it doesn’t seem like you’re ready.
Sorry Eric, I’m taking the liberty of speaking on your blogs behalf.
People on this thread should be able to speak their feelings, thoughts and opinions without being subjected to your arrogant condescending crap as if none of that matters and you are so much smarter than them because we choose not to take the conversation in the direction and manner you would like it to.
Which really doesn’t make any sense.
you’re asking if I can make a quality legal argument and yet neither can you because you are no more a lawyer than anyone else on the thread or me.
As a person it would of been nice to know what your feelings on the matter were. Even though I will guess that those feelings would of come from a feminists point of view.
At least it would of been in line with what the blog was intended to do.
Aloha
“Imagine, you leave a good job, leave your debts and obligations to some schmuck who promises to satisfy those obligations, and then find yourself without any recourse but for the law to satisfy those obligations!”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The law in most instances exists to protect people from fraud, NOT from their own stupidity. We have a responsibility to exercise due diligence to protect ourselves. His actions were rude and chickenspit, but not illegal.
She’s lucky to be rid of the creep before the vows. The most that he should be on the hook for, is the cost of the invitations and deposits for the caterers, photographer, flowers, etc. (The dress can be returned.)
She’s lucky I wasn’t on that jury. My vote would be for her to give back the ring and apply the $30,000 he’d already given her to the expenses already incurred for the wedding. After all, he was hardly responsible for her prior debts.
Women like her negate everything that other women have fought for. The first time I married was at age 18. (The age of maximum stupidity.)
I didn’t have a pit to hiss in and neither did he. Way back then, I found out that divorced women could NOT get any kind of credit. We were considered too unstable. Finding a job had its problems too. Divorced? Too unstable and will leave as soon as husband is found. Wives will object to having predatory divorcees prowling around office, etc.
That’s just a little hint of where we’ve come from. Now here she comes and wants daddy judge to save her from her own stupidity. No way would I give up an $80,000/year job until after the honeymoon. (If then.) Especially if the jerk had to have an ultimatum to propose. I don’t know how long she had been with this guy, but she should have taken the time to learn a lot more about his character before putting her livlihood into his hands.
Micky, I still see no relevent argument here that’s you’re making.
Charlene, “promises” have legal weight. Know your own countries law.
JMJ
Relevance is a word that can be ambiguous.
Depending on what you consider relevant to the argument.
But like I said above, you would like only what you deem to be relevent to be entered into the conversation/arguement.
In your case its only what the Georgia law says.
Actually, not all promises, especially verbal ones are not binding by law everywhere.
But you’re not doing too well at making my argument look irrelevant when you have responded to me in arguing on a personal and not legal base such as I have.
So for you to say that you dont see relevence in my arguement is disengenuous and a childish game. Grow up.
You say my argument is irrelevent and then you turn around and give relevence to Charlenes argument by answering her on the subject of promises which I brought up twice myself.
My argument is solid and as big as day. And that argument is that this never should of seen a courtroom. That position is based on my belief that this woman is either an idiot or a thief.
My argument is similar to Charlenes, Gayleas and those who left comments under the story that you linked us to.
No matter how much you side with the law on this it seems that the majority of us out there and here on this thread feel this was a hustle and a bad decision by the court.
The article you linked us to has comments below.
Now sisnce this is a newspaper column and not a blog you can be assured that the comments are not coming from a pre selected view or bias that is leaning one way.
I’ll assume that the papers redership is a nuetral balnce of opinions.
Interestingly enough, even the readers of the paper feel much the way Charlene,Gayleas and myself do.
————————————————————————————-
“Um – desperate much?? :-/
————————————————————————————-
“Take some personal responsibility for your bad decision. Think things through, other people should not have to pay for your poor choices.”
————————————————————————————-
“Sounds to me like the women we’re supposed to feel so sorry for was maybe looking for a sugar daddy instead of a marriage. Maybe the guy figured this out in time and cut out before he got in too far? Hey, you never know. It’s not ALWAYS the guy’s fault you know, and there are two sides to each story. No self-respecting woman would drop her life to leave for a guy like that. There must have been $$$ signs in her eyes.”
————————————————————————————-
“Good thing we have pictures of this lady, so men can recognize her and run the other way when they see her coming. What a gold digger.”
————————————————————————————–
“The moral of this story; when the writing is on the wall, make decisions with your head and not your heart!!”
————————————————————————————-
“This woman is a scam artist. She was setting him up to pay for her debt. I have zero sympathy for her. She chose to quit her job and move. He in return paid off her debt. Then she says she has more debt for him to pay right before the wedding. He bought her trips, an outrageous ring, and paid $30K of HER debt. He should sue her for all of the things he paid her for!! I can’t believe this even went through the court system. That lady deserves nothing”
————————————————————————————-
“Im just surprised it took him the length of time it did to walk away from this bitter troll. YUCK!!!
————————————————————————————-
Yet another reason why many men view women with such contempt. He should file bankruptcy immediately and use every means necessary to pay her not one thin dime.”
————————————————————————————–
So you see Jersey, out of 10 comments 8 of them agree with Charlene, Gaylea and myself.
That my good man is relevent to the fact that what the people feel is not what some liberal entitlement minded judge and jury feels.
And when the people speak loud enough in a majority then laws get changed. And that is why we are doing on this thread what we are doing.
Who knows, this could all lead to the people of Georgia petitioning the government and courts to change the law.
So , quality legal argument or not our arguments are relevent Mr McJones.