General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorgia man must pay $50k for breaking promise to marry
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/man-must-pay-50k-breaking-promise-marry-woman/ncDDT/ATLANTA —.
A Georgia man is learning the hard way that you need to keep your promises. A court has ruled that he must pay $50,000 for breaking his promise to marry his former fiancee.
According to CourtHouseNews.com, the state's court of appeals has ruled that Christopher Ned Kelley must compensate his former fiancee, Melissa Cooper, after first promising to marry her, but then ruining the relationships by allegedly cheating on her twice
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Like a woman scorned
longship
(40,416 posts)This case treads into perilous territory.
Not sure what to think. Of course, it's Georgia. Somehow not surprised.
dawg
(10,777 posts)
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And no stupidity like a contract broken...
(six of one, half a dozen of the other, and both as irrelevant as the other)
treestar
(82,383 posts)He would have been able to get an appeal heard if it were unconstitutional. Which is would be, if it applied to only one sex.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this or just throw out a bullshit saying to create a caricature of a woman.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)called Hell Hath No Fury about Betty Broderick. In case you don't remember her, she's the woman who killed her ex-husband and his new wife while they were sleeping. She never got over the fact that he dumped her because she was a psycho. She was getting $16,000 a month in alimony, but that wasn't enough for her to get on with her life, apparently.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cause they are scorned. men way outweigh women in murdering a spouse. a woman mostly does it to protect herself. a man mostly does it cause he is ..... scorned.
ironic, that.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Your words. I was just providing a factual example. Sorry if facts offend you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)scorned.
the minority of spousal murders are women and they mostly do it to protect themselves.
so.... you can porvide the "fact" of one woman murdering because scorned. yet, you seem to be the one challenged when presented with the fact the majority of men seem to have a much tougher issue with being scorned.... thru facts, than women.
why do you have an issue with me pointing this fact out?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Why do you have an issue with me posting a fact?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)whole for the gender. you were factually wrong to suggest one event is able to speak to a gender as a whole. which is what the quote, .... no fury like a woman scorn.
my argument, and allowed just as yours, is that men should replace the woman, in that quote. and i have facts to back me up. you have one...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)as could I. I read a lot, and women killing their husbands for reasons other than self defense is not unusual. Try Clara Harris if you like (although I will admit to having a lot of sympathy for her). If you want some other names I can easily provide them. I will stipulate that you can provide names to support your point of view as well.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)still want to argue.
funny funny
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Gee...maybe I should warn my wife. Do you have any facts to back that up? I'm aware that the divorce rate in this country tops 50%, but I wasn't aware that we had such a high murder rate.
As always, it's been fun (and incredibly enlightening) conversing with you, Seabeyond, but I have to go to bed for a while. I'm working tonight. If I don't reply immediately to any further replies you might direct to me, please don't think that I'm ignoring you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of the comment.... no fury like a woman scorned. i can think of tons of fury that way outweigh a woman scorn.
so ya, back pedal on outta the thread.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and I'm not attempting to backpedal out of anything. I just pointed out a couple of cases in reference to the comment. Thank you for your kind replies, though.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)woman scorned.
which i was correct to point out.
so where is your issue
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)as a counter to your point. Where is your issue? Why are you so angry about me making a simple post about a woman who killed her husband?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you might start from post one, all over again.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but I can honestly say that I don't understand this post from you.
Heres the way I see it:
A poster made a reply to the OP. You disagreed. I made a point to counter your disagreement. You took offense to my response. We've been going back and forth ever since. Obviously, we have different points of view and are not going to agree. That's fine. Different strokes.
I don't understand why you seem to get angry and take it so personally whenever someone disagrees with you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am NOT angry. regardless of you continually trying to give that to me. stop it.
simple.
no fury like a woman scorned. stupid and wrong comment. you give me ONE example.
no fury like a woman scorned
1. more men murder SO
2. the majority murder because they are scorned.
3. significantly fewer women murder SO.
4. majority murder to protect self.
that makes the stupid saying ... no fury like a woman scorned wrong.
conclusion. no fury like a MAN scorned, is more apt.
you giving one example means nothing, up against fact.
it is not like this has not been pointed out to you too many times.
do not tell me how i feel or what i think unless you are quoting my words. again... you will be wrong.
this doesnt take a rocket scientist to put this all together. now...
done with you cause you feel like you are playing an equally stupid game.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)do not prove points two and four.
Actually, I gave you two examples and offered to give you more. Yes, I know, as I stipulated, you could also provide examples.
malaise
(295,814 posts)There was no way he could have become a doctor without her sacrifices. She gave up way too much in the first place and then gave up her own freedom for her own bad decisions. It was never about money - it was about her life's investment in his success.
The thing is that I would never be in her position because no woman should give up her life to further her man's career. Betty was angry over the doormat treatment.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)No, I don't think it was about money. I think it was because she was dumped after everything she had done and everything they had been through.
It's a complicated case. If you watch the footage from her parole hearing, she's still pretty messed up.
malaise
(295,814 posts)Some men and women are obsessed and cannot let go for whatever reasons. They never think of the consequences or they'd know it's not worth it. Self love prevents self destruction. I have always loved me just that little bit more and truthfully I have never found myself in that situation. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)It was said centuries ago in a very patriarchal time by someone and every sexist has continued to use it. It's the 21st century and long past time for that one to go into the dustbin of history. As if men don't get angry when a woman scorns them. Hell they are worse.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)murder significantly less, and to protect self. yes.... factual it is a flip flop statement. no fury like a man scorned. but, unsurprisingly, as simple of logic as this is, there is still a poster in this subthread that refused to understand something so very very easy to understand, even when spelled out for him more than once. one has to wonder why.
i am tired of all these old, tired sexist lines we are suppose to giggle at. they feed a disrespect that people truly take to heart.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)in so many states...
I don't get where the $50,000 claim is coming from, or why it was awarded by a jury...That woman's only "severance" should be the engagement ring she gets to keep...No one made her stay with him for 10 years...
So is child support included in the 50k, or is that separate? Why is that not even mentioned in the story??
Warpy
(114,590 posts)Those are the only damages I can see being recoverable.
It's either that or treatment for the PID he gave her.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)That's probably a big part of it.
Also, the guy said he never intended to marry her? Sounds like he stepped on his own dick in front of the court.
A breach of promise can be actionable if someone "acts on it to their own detriment" - sounds like the case here.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)There's a lot of details missing on how exactly someone gets strung along for 10(!) years...
And then there's the child support question...
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)For instance: she may have been with him for 10 years but just quit her job last year based on his promise to marry.
His worst enemy in court was probably his own mouth.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)It differs by state.
Some states (e.g. Montana) recognize the engagement ring as an outright gift.
In other states, it is a gift conditional on the marriage occurring. These include Pennsylvania, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin.
You should consult your lawyer before getting engaged to be married.
For Illinois, see http://www.isba.org/sections/familylaw/newsletter/2011/06/brokenengagements
Javaman
(65,685 posts)I guess she didn't get a clue until the second time?
and I have no problem for him paying, mostly because he's a jerk.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)At some point the person who stays with a 'jerk' for 10 years needs to look in the mirror...
(I'm assuming there was no coercion, intimidation, physical violence, etc. on his part...)
Javaman
(65,685 posts)and him being negligent on his part is reason for him to pay.
sounds fair to me.
regardless of him being a jerk and for her staying with him.
Um, okay.
Firstly, agreeing to enter into a contract with someone at a future date isn't the same thing as entering into it.
Secondly, people shouldn't have to fork out substantial sums of money for being jerks. Being a jerk isn't nice, but you shouldn't have to pay out cash for it.
Thirdly, I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that this article is giving us the full story, it's just plaaaaaain weird. I'm going to read it later.
Fourthly, if it turns out that the court has ruled in her favour because solely because he hurt her feelings (which I find absolutely impossible to believe, there must be something more to all this), I'm so incredibly on the side of the guy. "You've really upset her so YOU HAVE TO GIVE HER SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF MONEY" That's just fucked up. That's the end.
Javaman
(65,685 posts)Yeah, you are right, I'm sure there is a ton more to this story that we aren't hearing.
but if he agreed to marry her or asked her to marry her, that's enough to hold up in court as being an official declaration of ones intentions.
I see no problem, again, regardless if this guy was a jerk, to pay the 50K.
all he could have done was say no to marriage or not ask her, no one was forcing him to do that.
And frankly, the battle between these two fools sounds nothing more than a grudge match between idiots, and as such, will probably drag on much longer than it needs to purely fueled by spite.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Not seeing how he's responsible for her choices? (providing they WERE hers and not his, a'course, which is typically the case...)
I still need to read the whole thing...
Javaman
(65,685 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)In California, for example, Cal. Civ. Code 1624 gives oral contracts the same legal weight as written and signed contracts. If you can prove that the person said something, a piece of paper isn't needed.
While marriage is a written contract, stating that you WILL get married can easily be construed as a verbal contract if it's agreed to by both parties. If the person later backs out of the agreement, and the aggrieved party can prove that a verbal contract for marriage was established, then the breach may be actionable.
A quick Googling indicates that oral contracts are enforceable in Georgia as well. If she could prove that a verbal contract was established, she may have had a legal leg to stand on here.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)...CU L8R ...I still think this is very weird...
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)However, from a legal perspective this is not the case or the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would apply and clearly it does not in Georgia.
Furthermore even if you did consider it a contract, without a marriage license no such contract existed.
Javaman
(65,685 posts)but given that it's a verbal agreement with intent, that would be, if I recall a legal binding agreement, regardless of a contract being drawn up.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Seems more like a back door avenue for the resurrection of common law marriage where both parties don't agree. I can see a jury awarding something crazy like this, but to be upheld by an appeals court seems quite ridiculous. It can have serious ramifications for both sexes. Imagine kicking a deadbeat former lover out of your home only to have them sue you after the fact. There's a good reason why common law marriage statues have been sunset in most states.
Javaman
(65,685 posts)cheers! 
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)From what I remember, a promise is not a contract because there is no consideration. BUT a breach of promise can be actionable if the injured party acts on the promise to their own detriment - the article says she quit her job. Quitting her job in anticipation of being a housewife/mother seems like she relied on the promise to her own detriment.
We also talked about breaches of promise regarding gifts. Same logic. If I promise to give $1 million dollars to XYZ charity but change my mind - not actionable. BUT, if I promise to give XYZ charity $1million dollars and they go out and acquire property to build their new wing with my donation, then that might be actionable as they relied on my promise to their detriment.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)At least that's the way it sounded from what's available. However, the problem seems to be how serious were either of them about getting married if after 10 years they never made it happen and both had relationships with other people.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Javaman
(65,685 posts)the two fools were made for each other.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)It seems to be atypical, too. I don't know of too many men who are ordered to pay for not following through with a marriage. I guess that's why this sort of thing makes the news when it happens.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)after substantial non-refundable payments have been made FOR the wedding.
These days, weddings can cost huge sums of money (stupid, I think), and there are lots of families who can be hurt irreparably after plunking down money for a wedding that never happens.
That said, if you are "with" someone for 10 years, and you have not figured out that he/she is NOT the person you can trust , that's on YOU.
Traditionally, the guy gets the ring back, and the woman gets rid of the cheating guy.
If she breaks the engagement and HE's the one who plunked down cold hard cash for the arrangements, then he becomes the aggrieved , and she may "owe" him.
If you spend years with someone ans then end up with no marriage, it sucks, but maybe waiting so long before making the commitment was the clue that was overlooked..
treestar
(82,383 posts)Very old fashioned.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but still is common in Asia for example.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Gothmog
(179,495 posts)Georgia likes most states has a law that provided that certain contract are not enforceable unless in writing http://cobblawgroup.net/blog/index.php/2012/06/19/georgia-contracting-beware-the-statute-of-frauds/
Georgia’s Statute of Frauds requires that certain contracts be in writing in order to be enforceable. Specifically, O.C.G.A. § 13-5-30 states the following contract must be reduced to writing:
(1) A promise by an executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee to answer damages out of his own estate;
(2) A promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
(3) Any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, except marriage articles as provided in Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Title 19;
(4) Any contract for sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning lands;
(5) Any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof;
(6) Any promise to revive a debt barred by a statute of limitation; and
(7) Any commitment to lend money.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I had forgotten from my Georgia bar exam prep the Statute of Frauds.
It does seem the wording of the SoF may have given the COA some wiggle room. If I recall from bar prep this was the situation where someone says "I will give you this ring if you marry me". I don't recall our exact discussion of the law regarding actual proposals for marriage.
If this hadn't appeared to be a contract claim I would also have thought the COA might have found this on equitable grounds.
Gothmog
(179,495 posts)I am a member of the Texas bar and so I am not going to opine on Georgia law but this result seems to be based on something other than contract law.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)The best part was when he claimed that giving her an engagement ring was in no way related to any proposal to marry. What did he say when he gave her the ring? "Hi Honey, this is payment for that great ****job you gave me last night but I have no plans to marry you"?
This is indeed a problem with the elimination of common law marriages. But as well anyone that has a long-term unmarried relationship with another person creates potential claims and issues around the nature of the relationship, etc.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... but the legal genius that came up with the idea that he should claim it was just a john-whore relationship should stick to bending tacos or something because that defense is offensive on its face.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She had quit her job to stay home with their three kids. It said that, right? And they'd been together 10 years. Her earning potential took a nosedive. So maybe the court was trying to do something along the lines of a divorce settlement?
Not sure.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Their relationship didn't begin until 2000.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)in Georgia.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)She deserves every penny.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)I think she should have received more for the abusive line of "defense" he took. Perhaps he'll think twice before claiming his partner is a prostitute.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)It has less to do with calling someone a whore and more to do with how cohabitation laws are written, some of which date back to much more puritanical times. The terms themselves don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.
Here is one example contained in GA's alimony law:
TITLE 19 - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 6 - ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
...
(b) Subsequent to a final judgment of divorce awarding periodic payment of alimony for the support of a spouse, the voluntary cohabitation of such former spouse with a third party in a meretricious relationship shall also be grounds to modify provisions made for periodic payments of permanent alimony for the support of the former spouse. As used in this subsection, the word "cohabitation" means dwelling together continuously and openly in a meretricious relationship with another person, regardless of the sex of the other person. In the event the petitioner does not prevail in the petition for modification on the ground set forth in this subsection, the petitioner shall be liable for reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the respondent for the defense of the action.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-19/chapter-6/article-1/19-6-19
Some other examples may be found here:
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-34/chapter-9/article-1/34-9-13
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-34/appendix-appendix/title-34-appx-bd-work-comp-r-13
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)It is VERY common in divorce cases for both parties to vilify each other
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)Accusations of whoredom were not among the proceedings.
