groom-to-be bails 4 days before wedding - bride sues

[vaskidmark]

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.

[AJ Dual]

Buttitta.. ? 

[bedlamite]

There's more to this story, and I don't want to know what it is.

[makattak]

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.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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.

[vaskidmark]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[HankB]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

maybe the circus wedding was why he bailed.  good decision on his part.   it gets outa hand

[Gowen]

$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.. ? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[CNYCacher]

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!"

[MicroBalrog]

This song.

That is all.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

This song.

That is all.

The song is not available in my country. Youtube is sorry about that.

[Scout26]

Smart move on his part.  Cheaper too.

[Gowen]

My wife just gave me this Scottish proverb:

Don't marry for money, you can borrow it cheaper.

[lupinus]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Strings]

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)...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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"

[Balog]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

"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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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