Does A Jilted Bride Deserve $150,000? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-25-2008, 10:15 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Does A Jilted Bride Deserve $150,000?

Jury Gives Woman Left at Altar $150K
She Moved to Be With Him, He Backed Out of Wedding by Leaving Note in Bathroom

By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit

July 24, 2008—

A broken heart is a tough thing to mend, but one Georgia women is at least getting $150,000 to help her heal.

A jury this week ordered RoseMary Shell's ex-fiance to pay her $150,000 after he broke off their engagement three days before the wedding by leaving her a note in their bathroom.

To top things off, a few months after the engagement was over, Shell told the jury that she learned that her fiance had been seeing another woman while they were engaged.

Shell had moved from Florida to Georgia to be with her fiance, Wayne Gibbs, according to court records. She found a new job, taking a pay cut. Her salary went from $81,000 a year, plus a 15 percent bonus, to $31,000 a year.

After the break-up, in June 2007 she went to court alleging that Gibbs was guilty of breach of contract. She said he acted in bad faith and caused her unnecessary trouble and expense. Thanks to him, she has no health insurance, no life insurance, no home, no car and limited creditworthiness to fix her life.

She asked for a jury to make her whole for her financial loss and to compensate her for mental anguish and humiliation.

And -- after a three-day trial -- the jury of six men and six women agreed that she had been wronged by Gibbs.

"I am thrilled to death," Shell told ABC's Atlanta affiliate, WSB. "Financially, he destroyed me just a lot of ways and people shouldn't be allowed to do that. Hopefully he'll think twice before he does it do someone else."

Shell's lawyer, Lydia J. Sartain, said this was not a case of a woman scorned but a broken contract.

"He never intended to marry her but it cost her a tremendous amount financially," Sartain told WSB.

Gibbs' lawyer, Hammond Law, could not be reached for comment.

But in closing arguments he told the jurors: "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.'"
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:27 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
She found a new job, taking a pay cut. Her salary went from $81,000 a year, plus a 15 percent bonus, to $31,000 a year.

...

Shell told the jury that she learned that her fiance had been seeing another woman while they were engaged.

...

Thanks to him, she has no health insurance, no life insurance, no home, no car and limited creditworthiness to fix her life.

...

"He never intended to marry her but it cost her a tremendous amount financially," Sartain told WSB.
The actual amount of the settlement aside, which one can debate ad infinitum, his actions caused her significant financial hardship, which all could have been settled by him dumping her before she moved, since he was seeing someone else anyway.

To me, this isn't about a "jilted bride" (a term that certainly carries implicit misogyny, in my view), but about one party to a contract not only breaking it, but causing significant financial harm to the other party. Each case, of course, has its own significance, or lack thereof, so I don't think this is going to set any special precedent that can't be solved through mere common sense and courtesy.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:36 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:34 PM
The story was on GMA and people have commented on it here.

ABC News: Cold Feet Cost Hubby-to-Be $150k

This woman took a chance and lost. That should not be compensible (sic). This culture of indignation is tearing apart the social fabric. It's making America a nation of victims with their hands out looking for a big payday that they didn't earn.

Nobody forced this woman to take a pay cut. Nobody FORCED her to move. She did it of her own free will. Get a life and stop suing people for no reason. Maybe her vindictive streak had something to do with him not wanting her to be in his life for the rest of time. He certainly has the right to change his mind without having to shell out a fortune. He has the right to change his mind people...I hope he appeals this verdict or something. Absolute ABSURD.

Well, I'm a man, and I agree with the jury. I understand an engagement is not a binding contract, but the guy shouldn't have continue misleading the woman this way. She moved to spend the rest of her life with this guy, and for months he has been seeing another woman and broke off the engagment three days before the wedding. Excuse me, but did anyone ever think of the costs of weddings these days? Did the jerk every paid for all the services already bought and paid for the wedding? For all the men who posted in support of the guy, you should really think twice before even making a committment to marry a woman, especially being stupid to break off the engagment so close to the wedding date. The guy should really have waited before making a marriage commitment. So I'm in agreement with the jury, given the jerk was real low in leaving a note as well as all the bills for this woman. In the end, it's not about revenge but being compensated for expenses.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:46 AM   #4
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 04:34 PM
So does this mean anyone who has ever had a broken engagement is now going to begin suing their ex?

Kind of ridiculous, if you ask me. If anything, she should be allowed to keep the ring so she can pawn/sell it.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 10:55 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post

To me, this isn't about a "jilted bride" (a term that certainly carries implicit misogyny, in my view)
I know what you're saying, but there can be plenty of jilted husbands too. Given the same circumstances, if it was a man he would certainly deserve the money just as much as the woman would. The notion that women "give things up" to be with a man doesn't really exist in 2008 like it used to, and men could certainly give the same things up.

The fact that this guy seemingly acted like such a dog must have played a role in the jury's decision.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:51 AM   #6
Neon Zebra
 
beegee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: southern nevada
Posts: 10,590
Local Time: 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Thanks to him, she has no health insurance, no life insurance, no home, no car and limited creditworthiness to fix her life.
Thanks to him?

That's a pretty convenient way for this woman to not take responsibility for the decisions SHE made.
__________________
beegee is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:34 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The actual amount of the settlement aside, which one can debate ad infinitum, his actions caused her significant financial hardship, which all could have been settled by him dumping her before she moved, since he was seeing someone else anyway.

To me, this isn't about a "jilted bride" (a term that certainly carries implicit misogyny, in my view), but about one party to a contract not only breaking it, but causing significant financial harm to the other party. Each case, of course, has its own significance, or lack thereof, so I don't think this is going to set any special precedent that can't be solved through mere common sense and courtesy.
I agree with you and the court's decision. She wasn't being a stupid woman making bad decisions, she was making life-changing decisions based on a mutual agreement about building a life and future together. Her biggest mistake may have been that she's a poor judge of character. I think it's all quite reasonable and the amount of money isn't outlandish. Had she been asking for millions, as people do in many frivolous cases, that would be a different story.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:43 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryMullen's POPAngel View Post
So does this mean anyone who has ever had a broken engagement is now going to begin suing their ex?
This already happens pretty commonly when it comes time to assigning debts (for things like items bought for the wedding, deposits that are not refundable, etc).

Quote:
Kind of ridiculous, if you ask me. If anything, she should be allowed to keep the ring so she can pawn/sell it.
That would depend on what the law regarding conditional gifts is in the state in question.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:55 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryMullen's POPAngel View Post
So does this mean anyone who has ever had a broken engagement is now going to begin suing their ex?
Carrie B could have made a fortune!
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:41 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
kafrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Upside-down
Posts: 19,644
Local Time: 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryMullen's POPAngel View Post
So does this mean anyone who has ever had a broken engagement is now going to begin suing their ex?

Kind of ridiculous, if you ask me. If anything, she should be allowed to keep the ring so she can pawn/sell it.
I have to agree. You could argue any number of ways a breakup might cost a person - maybe they're so devestated they can't get out of bed, function at work, lost wages, etc.

She should definitely pawn the ring. That's what I did with mine when I found out my ex was cheating. Went on a shopping spree with the money.. good times. Best way to heal - dust yourself off, move on, and buy something pretty
__________________
kafrun is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 05:47 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 04:34 PM
I haven't seen any of the merits of this case, but why any self respecting woman or man would give up their security/job/insurance on another person's word is beyond me.
Oh - and no, she should not be able keep the ring either. That's part of the contract that wasn't fulfilled. He gets the ring back.
There's more to this than what I have read.
and all of this is just my opinion, of course
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 05:53 PM   #12
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,708
Local Time: 01:34 PM
I dunno. I think if you get engaged and the cause of your breakup is that your beloved is boffing someone else, I think you get to keep the ring.

If you, the recipient of the engagement ring, are boffing someone else or decide to break up, then you should give the ring back.

But if you are the dumpee and not the dumper, the ring is yours. That's my understanding of the etiquette in such situations.
__________________
corianderstem is online now  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:43 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
I dunno. I think if you get engaged and the cause of your breakup is that your beloved is boffing someone else, I think you get to keep the ring.

That's my understanding of the etiquette in such situations.
Etiquette and law are two different things. (and I just know enough to make me dangerous )
If one evokes a contract with regards to a marriage i.e - a ring - and that contract is broken - then they can be held to that contract, and have to give the ring back.
Regardless of how it was broken, it's by law a contract.
But his liability is - in the respect that he planned a life/wedding with her and then bailed out days before makes him liable for all the expenses incurred by her.
The jury thought she lost enough to award her the amount she lost. I think this was a good judgement.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:55 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
kafrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Upside-down
Posts: 19,644
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
If you, the recipient of the engagement ring, are boffing someone else or decide to break up, then you should give the ring back.

But if you are the dumpee and not the dumper, the ring is yours. That's my understanding of the etiquette in such situations.
That latter is the rule of thumb, but in my situation I went with the former I broke it off, but I broke it off because he was "boffing" someone else. You better believe I got my money's worth
__________________

__________________
kafrun is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com