Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: vaskidmark on December 16, 2010, 01:33:23 PM
-
http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/12/14/bride-sues-groom-for-leaving-her-at-the-altar-to-the-tune-of/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C190317
I understand that several different parties have paid out a whole bunch of money that cannot/wiull not be refunded.
But what is the legal obligation of the former groom-to-be to reimburse said parties for their expenditures?
I'm not wanting to get into the moral/ethical side of things. Just wanting to find out what legal responsibility he has to reimburse them.
And as far as the emotional distress claim? I say she got off cheap, and if he winds up having to pay anything he got of exceedingly cheap.
As for the author of the piece? Try this: The point is, Buttitta's fiance lied. He tricked her into believing that spending that money was not for nothing.
Just think about it. Had they pulled the trigger and walked down the aisle, their assets would have been combined, so it didn't matter which of them fronted the costs. Just as their lives were to be joined, so were their debts. And unless the bride was baller like that and paid for everything in cash, there would have been residual costs that the couple, together, would've been paying off for some time. I say, he's on the hook for his share. Go get 'em, girl.
And This: Nicole Sia is not a lawyer, but she is engaged, and therefore entitled to her strong opinion.
Fair warning for Nicole's enfianced.
stay safe.
-
Buttitta.. ? =|
-
There's more to this story, and I don't want to know what it is.
-
There is a verbal agreement, if nothing else. She rightly expected that her affianced would cement the verbal agreement with a more formal legal union. (If she's got an engagement ring, it can be argued there was compensation.)
She has contracted significant numbers of vendors on the expectation of his performance of the verbal contract. He has failed to perform his part of the contract. As such, it should be his responsibility to make the party who is suffering the breach whole.
I suppose we will found out how the courts view it in a few months.
-
She says she's looking to recover the more than $95,000 she spent on the wedding, including nearly $12,000 on flowers and $5,400 on her wedding dress and accessories.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Jilted-Bride-Sues-Groom-Who-Bailed-Out-Days-Before-Wedding-111753759.html#ixzz18InxteZV
Damn. Maybe spending 100k on the wedding alone set off alarm bells for the guy.
At least he bailed before the wedding. If he tried afterward, he'd be in a much, much worse place.
-
There is a verbal agreement, if nothing else. She rightly expected that her affianced would cement the verbal agreement with a more formal legal union. (If she's got an engagement ring, it can be argued there was compensation.)
As the article noted, there is that pesky 13th Amendment.
And ettiquette says she should not keep the ring. If I were the former groom-to-be I might be thinking of counter-suing to get it back both for the monetary value as well as for the emotional distress of her keeping it.
stay safe.
-
As the article noted, there is that pesky 13th Amendment.
And ettiquette says she should not keep the ring. If I were the former groom-to-be I might be thinking of counter-suing to get it back both for the monetary value as well as for the emotional distress of her keeping it.
stay safe.
A marriage is a legal contract. A verbal agreement to enter into that contract can be understood as a contract as well, especially considering the investment that goes into formalizing and celebrating the marriage contract. (13th amendment would not apply.)
He should get his earnest money (the ring) back once he makes the party that suffered the breach of contract whole.
She may be acting as a woman scorned, but backing out 4 days before the wedding causes significant harm to the offended party.
As for $95,000: that's a lot to spend on a marriage. If he had a problem with that, he should have stopped this at the planning stage, not at a point where the contracts cannot be canceled.
-
And ettiquette says she should not keep the ring.
Actually, when I was growing up I heard that proper ring etiquette said that if the bride calls it off, the ring is returned, and if the groom calls it off, the bride keeps the ring.
-
Actually, when I was growing up I heard that proper ring etiquette said that if the bride calls it off, the ring is returned, and if the groom calls it off, the bride keeps the ring.
I believe I have heard that also. If she keeps it, it should be lined up against the costs she says he owed.
-
maybe the
circus wedding was why he bailed. good decision on his part. it gets outa hand
-
$100k for a wedding.... My house didn't even cost $100k when I bought it. I sure hope one of them was a Dr. in order to pay for that mess. I would of jilted her too, if just because of her name.
Buttitta.. ? =|
-
Stupidity hurts. Spending $100k on a wedding is stupid. Risky, too, as Ms Buttitta found.
A couple's finances and obligations aren't merged until they're married. Obviously during the engagement and wedding planning phase they aren't married. So if either one of them entered into agreements with vendors for a big wedding party, then he/she did it as a single individual, not jointly as a married couple.
Now that I think about it, I recall from my own wedding planning days that several vendors took pains to remind us of this fact. Some even mentioned this in their contract, that even if the wedding was called off, whoever signed the contract would still be liable for the bill.
She should have known that a wedding isn't a sure thing, that either of them would be free to call it off before the big day. She also should have known that taking out the financial obligations all in her name was a dumb idea. She could have protected herself by splitting the obligations up evenly between her and her fiance, but she didn't think to do that. Oops.
As I said, stupidity hurts.
-
Should he be liable for any and every insane thing she comes up with in preparation for the wedding?
How is it we came to blame him for the dissolution of the arrangement?
Surely it's possible that she created some sort of situation where going through with the a marriage would be unconscionable for him. She isn't allowed to claim a grieved status merely because she claims that she was willing to marry him, and would have, but he changed his mind. At some point she needs to accept some responsibility for them not getting married.
She should have known that a wedding isn't a sure thing, that either of them would be free to call it off before the big day. She also should have known that taking out the financial obligations all in her name was a dumb idea. She could have protected herself by splitting the obligations up evenly between her and her fiance, but she didn't think to do that. Oops.
How much would you like to bet against the conversation going like this?
"Let's get frou frou birds and fudderwhacken cake, topped with slithy toves. I want to have ______ and __________ and _______ oh and _____________________________________"
"I don't want to pay for all that, it's ridiculous."
"Fine! YOU don't have to. I will pay for it!"
-
This song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZL12uc5qQg)
That is all.
-
This song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZL12uc5qQg)
That is all.
The song is not available in my country. Youtube is sorry about that.
-
Smart move on his part. Cheaper too.
-
My wife just gave me this Scottish proverb:
Don't marry for money, you can borrow it cheaper. =D
-
Tough one in a way. Did she do anything to cause the breakup? Was she creating this circus against his wishes?
If it was all things he agreed to and he just decided he changed his mind, sure I'd say he is entitled to a portion of the bill. However, if she did anything to reasonably cause the break up or just went crazy signing for things he didn't consent to, then no.
-
maybe the circus wedding was why he bailed. good decision on his part. it gets outa hand
Yeah, I woulda bailed if that sort of thing went on in the build-up.
-
Yeah, I woulda bailed if that sort of thing went on in the build-up.
it usually only gets worse
when i left the mayflower our record wedding was over a mill. for about 1500 guests both ballrooms 150 k in flowers
we did a 300 k bar mitsvah
and once did 3 weddings over 3 weeks same guest list each one "HAD" to out do the previous one small less than 400 folks but started at over 100 k topped out at 250 k. its like the land of oz
-
Excuse me while I go give Spoon a kiss...
Most expensive part of our wedding? I think it was the ball 'n' chain (which Bedlamite put together)...
-
my wedding? 22 folks total invited priest organist and one stow away. would been less but she has 7 siblings and i have 3. wedding dinner? we went to a steakhouse in town. i refused to play in a big circus. i LIKE my father in law. i did get pauls letter to the romans as a reading "women be submissive to your husbands"
-
my wedding? 22 folks total invited priest organist and one stow away. would been less but she has 7 siblings and i have 3. wedding dinner? we went to a steakhouse in town. i refused to play in a big circus. i LIKE my father in law. i did get pauls letter to the romans as a reading "women be submissive to your husbands"
And husbands love your wife as Christ loves the church. I think women get the easier end, at least in terms of actually living up to the command.
-
"Breach of promise" used to be codified in law in most places. I can't ever recall hearing of its being invoked (until this), but I wonder how many states and countries still have it on the books.
I had it happen to me about 15 years ago. My bride-to-be and her daughter had already moved in, we were about ten days away from the wedding, and she pulled the plug. In retrospect, I was undoubtedly VERY fortunate. It cost me a few thousand at the time, but sober reflection suggested that things would have been much worse had the marriage actually taken place.
-
And husbands love your wife as Christ loves the church. I think women get the easier end, at least in terms of actually living up to the command.
yea the whole letter is balanced and i thought appropriate to the occasion but the folks who knew my wife were amused
-
Damn. Maybe spending 100k on the wedding alone set off alarm bells for the guy.
I'd call off a wedding that cost $100,000 too. I don't want a 30 year mortgage to pay for the stupid wedding.
My way of thinking...$10k is MORE than enough for a wedding.
Anything more than that, and you're getting into little-girl-princess-idealized-stylized-fantasies-and-not-the-celebration-of-the-union-of-two-families-and-well-wishing-for-their-future territory. You can't be 20-somethings and starting off your life together with $100k of debt.
If she's a trust fund heiress, then she can eat it.
If he's a trust fund heir and agreed to the costs initially, then he should eat it.
But if he just decided that she was nucking futs and realized it more and more as she demonstrated her inner Bridezilla... good for him.
-
big weddings are often the symptom of something wrong with brides mom. thats where the real sickness lies in my experience
-
big weddings are often the symptom of something wrong with brides mom. thats where the real sickness lies in my experience
Heh tell me about it. I was ready to shoot mine. I'm still hearing how expensive five or so k was....all for crap she wanted provided by overpriced idiots she hired.
-
i once did a wedding for 125 folks, vegetarian, for 625 bucks grazing menu and my labor was my gift to the bride. that included 2 agency waiters for 4 hours. though i was able to borrow the glasses plates etc
-
Well, whaddaya know?
http://www.illinoisdivorce.com/family_law_articles/breach_of_marriage_promise.php
Breach of promise actions sound more in the nature of breach of contract than tort law. Breach of promise lawsuits allow a jilted party to recover money, but the amount of recovery may be limited. ... Illinois law still recognizes such claims but, again, strictly defines and limits the amount of money a plaintiff may recover. Still, such lawsuits are viable. Indeed, in one 1995 case a jury awarded $178,000 to a wronged spouse and the judge upheld $118,000.
Also: http://law.justia.com/illinois/codes/2005/chapter57/2022.html
(740 ILCS 15/2) (from Ch. 40, par. 1802)
Sec. 2. The damages to be recovered in any action for breach of promise or agreement to marry shall be limited to the actual damages sustained as a result of the injury complained of.
(Source: Laws 1947, p. 1181.)
(740 ILCS 15/3) (from Ch. 40, par. 1803)
Sec. 3. No punitive, exemplary, vindictive or aggravated damages shall be allowed in any action for breach of promise or agreement to marry.
(Source: Laws 1947, p. 1181.)
(740 ILCS 15/4) (from Ch. 40, par. 1804)
Sec. 4. Within three months from the date that the breach of promise or agreement to marry occurred, unless such breach occurred prior to the effective date of the act, any person who is about to commence any civil action in any court for breach of promise or agreement to marry shall give to the person against whom said action is to be brought, or send in a sealed envelope with first class postage prepaid and deposited in the United States mail to such person at his or her last known address, notice in writing, signed by the person who is about to commence said action, giving the date upon which the promise or agreement to marry was made, and the date upon which the marriage ceremony was to have been performed, stating the damages suffered by the person signing said notice and stating whether the person signing said notice is or is not still willing to marry the person to whom the statement is given. If the breach occurred prior to the effective date of this act the notice herein required shall be served within three months after such effective date.
(Source: Laws 1947, p. 1181.)
-
i once did a wedding for 125 folks, vegetarian, for 625 bucks grazing menu and my labor was my gift to the bride. that included 2 agency waiters for 4 hours. though i was able to borrow the glasses plates etc
That is a handsome gift, IMO.
-
But according to the laws cited, the bride-to-have-been cannot sue for emotional damages, which seems to be a portion of her pleadings. (
740 ILCS 15/3) (from Ch. 40, par. 1803)
Sec. 3. No punitive, exemplary, vindictive or aggravated damages shall be allowed in any action for breach of promise or agreement to marry.
(Source: Laws 1947, p. 1181.)
The jilted bride claims that by calling it quits, the groom "intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on her. She's reportedly seeking more than $95,000 from her ex -- money, she says, that she'd already spent on the wedding.
Buttitta ended up SUING HIM FOR $100 GRAND.
There's the dress, the rings, flowers -- Buttitta says she spent over $12,500 on those -- invitations, escort cards and a ton of other things that take up a whole lot of time and even more of your money.
So where's the bulk of the missing $87,500 coming from? And will the court simply accept that blowing bucks out the wazoo for the purpose of being ostentatious is recoverable?
stay safe.
-
That is a handsome gift, IMO.
not as much as you think she was quite the remarkable girl part of a remarkable couple. high school sweet hearts went to same school to stay together. both worked in the kitchen as part of their financial aid. both made a commitment to "save themselves" for marriage and to the best of my knowledge lived up to it. real nice kids hard workers. stood up to some ridicule over their commitment to principle. it was one 14 hour day for me. it was funny i told her what i would do for em early in her senior year. told her if her mom wrote a check for the cost of the groceries and waiters i'd do the rest. her mom balked went and got estimates from some caterers ridgwells amongst them then came back to me with a much better attitude. over the years i've done 12-15 weddings like that. i'm too cash poor to buy a great gift but i pitch it to the parents tell em to give the saved money to the kids as a house downpayment. the places i worked let me use their plates etc. a nice wedding does not have to cost a mint. says the guy who made his living exploiting people who didn't believe that. its a crazy biz
oh yea and veg functions are cheap
-
But according to the laws cited, the bride-to-have-been cannot sue for emotional damages, which seems to be a portion of her pleadings.
I noticed that ... that's why I cited the law. She can't be much of a lawyer if she's suing on the basis of a claim that's specifically and explicitly barred by statute.
-
I noticed that ... that's why I cited the law. She can't be much of a lawyer if she's suing on the basis of a claim that's specifically and explicitly barred by statute.
So when are we hooking her up with Ned? :angel:
stay safe.
-
I noticed that ... that's why I cited the law. She can't be much of a lawyer if she's suing on the basis of a claim that's specifically and explicitly barred by statute.
I suspect she found a way to make the claim fit the law. Creative drafting ftw.