You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Reality Hipcheck within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Jilted Bride Awarded $150K After Wedding Called Off - Print This Story News Story - WSB Atlanta
Jilted Bride Awarded $150K After Wedding Called Off
HALL COUNTY, Ga. -- The
View Poll Results: Do you agree with the jury's judgment for the jilted bride?
Jilted Bride Awarded $150K After Wedding Called Off
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.
There is a poll in the link but I'd like to hear some debate to go along with our own poll.
...and I'm not allowing a wishy-washy "I'm not sure" poll response like they did in their poll.
Maybe you're not sure because of other possible information not disclosed in the article, but just work with what ya got.
__________________ Hey you, get your damn hands off her.
1) She left her job - Like Doc said. Tough titties! It was her choice!
2) She suffered financial losses after the breakup - It was never his responsibility to cover her losses, especially since he already paid 30k of her debt.
3) She suffered emotionally - She's a woman. What woman doesn't suffer emotionally? Seriously.
I agree with the decision. Here's why, at least based on the current information I've read:
Promissory estoppel:
1 - A promise is made which should reasonably be expected to induce reliance.
2 - There is a reliance on that promise.
3 - An injustice occurs to the party relying on the promise.
Was a promise made which she would reasonably be expected to rely upon? He promised to marry her if she moved out there (quits a high paying job, moves to his city, etc.). There's clearly a reliance on that promise to marry. There's clearly an injustice to the party relying on the promise (she gets there, and oh, surprise, nevermind).
While I might normally agree someone should just suck it up, there's a reason the law allows for things like this. Sometimes a person jumps through hoops with certain expectations which are then not met by the other party.
This was a close one for me. The only reason I would disagree with the decision is that I would consider the undisclosed additional debt as a breach of contract on her part.
__________________ The gene pool could use a little chlorine
I agree with the decision. Here's why, at least based on the current information I've read:
Promissory estoppel:
1 - A promise is made which should reasonably be expected to induce reliance.
2 - There is a reliance on that promise.
3 - An injustice occurs to the party relying on the promise.
Was a promise made which she would reasonably be expected to rely upon? He promised to marry her if she moved out there (quits a high paying job, moves to his city, etc.). There's clearly a reliance on that promise to marry. There's clearly an injustice to the party relying on the promise (she gets there, and oh, surprise, nevermind).
While I might normally agree someone should just suck it up, there's a reason the law allows for things like this. Sometimes a person jumps through hoops with certain expectations which are then not met by the other party.
I might agree with you if she had been up front with her debt prior to commiting to the marriage and quitting her job. If she needed to relocate, she should have found a job and paid her own debt. Why is it his job?
I agree with the decision. Here's why, at least based on the current information I've read:
Promissory estoppel:
1 - A promise is made which should reasonably be expected to induce reliance.
2 - There is a reliance on that promise.
3 - An injustice occurs to the party relying on the promise.
Was a promise made which she would reasonably be expected to rely upon? He promised to marry her if she moved out there (quits a high paying job, moves to his city, etc.). There's clearly a reliance on that promise to marry. There's clearly an injustice to the party relying on the promise (she gets there, and oh, surprise, nevermind).
While I might normally agree someone should just suck it up, there's a reason the law allows for things like this. Sometimes a person jumps through hoops with certain expectations which are then not met by the other party.
Based on this logic any boyfriend/girlfriend can sue each other when the other party said they'd be together for ever.
I am going to start looking for a rich single woman in Georgia. This case sets a nice precedent for future cases. I wonder if I have to disclose that I am married prior to getting engaged.
The article I originally read a couple of days ago didn't mention anything about debt, especially undisclosed debt. However, considering how much she was already in debt (at least, if not more than $30,000 was disclosed - the article never gives the exact amounts), I bet it would stand to reason that the argument was made he knew what he was getting into by already paying off a large sum of her debt (she's not just in debt $2,000 or $3,000, but over $30,000). He indicated he'd take care of her debt... I would also imagine that the additional, undisclosed debt wasn't significant or the case might have gone another direction (i.e. debt was disclosed as $30,000, but he discovers she owes twice that - in which case he might have a stronger argument).
The key, again, is that he already began paying off a large sum of debt. This furthers the argument of contract - she was absolutely relying on his promise to pay off debt.
Again - was the undisclosed debt significant compared to the disclosed debt (and exactly how much was the debt she already disclosed)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsJohn/Obediah
Based on this logic any boyfriend/girlfriend can sue each other when the other party said they'd be together for ever.
This is another example of a jury being idiots
No - based on this logic, a boyfriend/girlfriend CAN'T sue each other simply for saying they'd be together. Look at those criteria closer:
There is a promise which could be expected to be relied upon, there is actual reliance, and there is an injustice which occurs to the party relying on the promise. Simply saying "I'll be with you forever and take care of you" is one thing. By taking steps to indicate you're serious and allowing the other party to rely on your promise is another thing.
I would say he was an idiot for paying off any of her debt.
What do you think about this jilted bride case? 
Dr. Naysay
