http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/24/pn.fiancee.dumped.cnn

Came across this this morning. So now, even proposing marriage is an implied, legally binding, contract? I mean, fine, maybe the guy's a prick for inducing her, but this opens all kinds of entanglements even for those who aren't. What's next? You have an LTR with a woman for 4 years and she sues you for time lost for never having proposed?

It's worse than that, Rollo. If you even let a girl live with you for a few weeks, you cannot legally kick her out. She can claim that is now her abode and continue to live there without paying rent. If you are a renter, only the landlord could remove her, and that would require terminating YOUR lease.

Maybe there should be a political forum where we can figure out which politicians are gonna restore sanity and fairness to laws, and stop kow-towing to a liberal feminist agenda at men's expense. But that sounds like a pipe dream.

So now, even proposing marriage is an implied, legally binding, contract?


Not exactly. Her recovery is based upon detrimental reliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Reliance-based_estoppels
The marriage proposal is a side issue. Her damages are based upon the money she lost relying on his promise of marriage, although the proposal itself is not a contract.

Any promise that someone else makes to you that you spend money to rely upon gives you a case against them if they later deny that promise. If she had not quit her job and moved there, she would not get any money.

Check the link (?) I clicked on it and got the headlines from India (?)

However I saw this story yesterday - yahoo I think it was. The guy from GA the fiancee left her six fig job in FL to go live with him etc etc.

Rollo, I have read a # of your posts and they are usually spot on, but I'd have to disagree here. The guy was somewhat of a scumbag and led her on. He proposed - he made his bed.... and he should have slept in it. He made a decision and he should have stuck with it. That's part of being a stand up man.

Leaving a Dear Jane note for her in the bathroom? Cummon, thats totally lame.

I think there needs to be a precedent set for both men and women as for accountability.

I do agree the penalty seems excessive. Hopefully in the not too distant future we will see an AFC win a settlement going the opposite way.

This all didn't happen overnight. What's important to realize here is that, at some point, her job should have come up in a discussion and I assume it did. If this man knew that she was giving up a better job to come to live with him "permanently", then there's moral accountability there I'd say. Moral accountability is often addressed legally, as it was here. I'm surprised it ended up being only a one time payment of 150K.

Well

Rollo Tomassi said:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/24/pn.fiancee.dumped.cnn

Came across this this morning. So now, even proposing marriage is an implied, legally binding, contract? I mean, fine, maybe the guy's a prick for inducing her, but this opens all kinds of entanglements even for those who aren't. What's next? You have an LTR with a woman for 4 years and she sues you for time lost for never having proposed?

Click to expand...

Rollo,

That's what he gets...ALMOST.

These guys need to stop promising these women marriage, for BUTT.

Obviously, he wasn't going to wed her. So he nutted up with 5G's. 5G's???
Oh well. Dummy must have a written bunch of "Promissary Love Notes". In the Court of Law he was found guilty. No doubt it was a female judge.

Either or, He's guilty. Simple and plain.

Next time, PEEPS.. NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER write anything that can bind you to commitments or obligations. I'm not a lawyer and I KNOW THAT.

As the saying says..." UNDERSTAND THAT ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO CAN HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW."

Have I, at one time NOT held up to a promise to marry someone..LOL. Possibly. But she's gone now.She's better off now, that's what "certain" people have told me. If I've written "Promissary Love Notes" then I'm sure the Statute of Limitations have run out by now. :cheer:

- AA

thedeparted said:

It's worse than that, Rollo. If you even let a girl live with you for a few weeks, you cannot legally kick her out. She can claim that is now her abode and continue to live there without paying rent. If you are a renter, only the landlord could remove her, and that would require terminating YOUR lease.

Click to expand...

That's landlord/tenant law, and as WRONG as it is, as BIASED as it is in favor of the deadbeat scumbag tenant, it has nothing to do with women.

ANYONE you invite to stay in your home has tenant rights. If their clothes and toothbrush are there, you gotta evict them if they don't want to leave, plain and simple. So be careful who you allow to stay with you.

Andy_Dufresne said:

Leaving a Dear Jane note for her in the bathroom? Cummon, thats totally lame.

I think there needs to be a precedent set for both men and women as for accountability.

Click to expand...

First of all, dude was an IDIOT to leave a $5,000 check in the first place. This woman looked at the $5k check and saw $150k. He tried to throw her a couple of bucks cause he felt bad, but all it did was plant a seed that cost him a lot more.

And as for accountability, where are you gonna draw the line?

This digs WAY too deep into a civil matter of an "implied" contract.

Should I be suing my fiancee for all the times I bought her dinner and took her on vacation when I find out she cheated on me during the bachelorette party?

Pretty ridiculous huh?

So where do you draw the line?

Guys

Why are we defending a SUCKER who decided to leave a check for 5G's to a possible WIFE. We don't know how far he went.

** Yeah, I edited this comment. **

Cmon now..

Dear Rollo,
This is far from a new development,why in the dim distant past of my boyhood saucy breach of promise cases in the Newspaper used to lighten up dull Sunday mornings...There was also the crime of enticement where if you pulled another guys wife,he could have his day in court with you...no nothing is new,the wheel just keeps turning....

I saw this the other day. I was wondering how long it would take for somebody on these boards to use as another piece of evidence of the evil feminine collective trying to destroy humanity.

This guy was an idiot. He got what he deserved, which is exactly what will happen if you act from a standpoint of neediness.

If you show weakness, you get taken. A woma's gotta earn the right to be shown your vulnerabilites.

If you show them from a standpoint of neediness, however slight and covered by self deception, hoping to get a reward, you're gonna get phucked.

STR8UP said:

That's landlord/tenant law, and as WRONG as it is, as BIASED as it is in favor of the deadbeat scumbag tenant, it has nothing to do with women.

ANYONE you invite to stay in your home has tenant rights. If their clothes and toothbrush are there, you gotta evict them if they don't want to leave, plain and simple. So be careful who you allow to stay with you.

Click to expand...

this is true, even in areas that do not support a landlord/tenant act.

when you invite someone to live with you, although you may not have put them on your lease, you just became their landlord.
if you want them to move, after they started receiving mail there, you must go to the court house and file eviction yourself, which is a 90 day process.

during that time, if you two cause disturbances by fighting about the apartment, the landlord can say you are violating your lease, which is cause for eviction.
if that person was not on your lease, then you breached the contract of your lease by subletting, which is cause for eviction.

landlords do not evict your guest alone, they evict everyone in the whole apartment.

I'm surprised how many guys argue "he got what he deserves." It's like justifying rape based on how the woman was dressed. $150k represents $300k of income pre-tax. That is a couple years of her salary I'm guessing. Can she not get her job back in a couple of months?

The implied thing is utterly absurd. We have contracts for the purpose of making responsibilities EXPLICIT. The contract is the marriage. "I do" signs it. The engagement is the **option** to get married, which he purchased and paid for with an engagement ring. If he chose not to exercise the option he might not get the ring back. But the contract was not signed. They were not married.

The problem is, of that $150k, 1/3 to 1/2 is going to an attorney. Divorce is a profit industry for lawyers. And they generally extract that profit from the man. That is why trial lawyers are huge supporters of democrats and feminists, as they are living-off the entitlement and victimology agenda which underlies the damages they recover for their clients. Women are deemed to be victims, and entitled to payments from their oppressors...

Sadly, stuff like this makes it impossible for a man of means to even contemplate marriage or living with someone. In this way, the feminist liberal ideology -- with the generous support of attorneys -- undermines families and society as a whole.

Something to really think about before you get carried away by the audacity of hope this November . . .

The only people I've ever met in the US who did not dislike lawyers were my professors at law school. They thought it was all a big misunderstanding, and people were just ignorant.

Although I have not taken the test yet, as an aspiring applicant to my state's bar association, I am prohibited from making any public remarks that "disparage the practice of law." That means it is an unethical act for me to say anything bad about lawyers. There is no defense for truth, either. If I see a lawyer being a scum bag, it is unethical for me to tell anyone except the bar association. But everyone is supposed to tell on everyone else - that's another ethics rule. They call it the "squeal rule." The rub is that disciplinary records are private. If a lawyer has a history of cheating people, there's no way to know. They keep all of that confidential, even to that lawyer's clients.

As I said in the OP, the guy's a douche, that's established. Got what he deserved? OK, I'll even go that far, but my point of linking this isn't to debate whether he screwed himself or not. My point is the precedent this represents.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the merits and strength of a particular case refer back to previous precedents of a similar case? Meaning if this judgement comes full circle, future cases based on similar criteria and circumstance will hold up in court.

I'm not trying to say "evil women win again", but you simply cannot ignore the gender bias in this. How many AFCs do you know who've altered their lives, changed their careers, moved across states or switched universities in order to facilitate their ONEitis woman only to have her split up with him 6 months after? It would never even occur to a guy in this situation that he might have some legal entitlement to some kind of financial recompense simply because he's male and he's expected to put up and shut up like a man. A woman gets a hearty "you go girl!" and a guy is a whiney b!tch who should've known better. Both situations involve emotional duress and financial liability, but a woman is a victim, and a man is a spineless chump.

Danger said:

I think he got screwed.

It's an engagement NOT marriage. Marriage should not be jumped into, and neither should engagements lest something like this occurs. She made poor choices and it appears she is not accountable for them. Someone else must pay the price.

I would bet that were the roles reversed the man would get nothing.

How many men on this board can count the number of times that women have not kept their word versus men? Women are famous for "changing their minds" with no accountability. Men are held to the standard of their honor. To me this is just another extension of that reality.

Click to expand...

I think he screwed himself.

You trust a dog to be a dog.

This case is an extraordinary one. There was a WEALTH of evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. Evidence that the man himself provided her. I don't see this causing a torrent of similar law suits... unless there are guys out there as stupid as this gentleman...

Danger said:

Let me pose a question this way to the board....

When a woman breaks off an engagement, does this ruling not imply that the man would also have recourse for all monies spent on the prospect including dates, gifts, and favors for her family members?

Click to expand...

That's what I said.

Danger said:

Let me pose a question this way to the board....

When a woman breaks off an engagement, does this ruling not imply that the man would also have recourse for all monies spent on the prospect including dates, gifts, and favors for her family members?

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure those would be considered gifts, and definately not agreements of any sort. That is an AFC way of thinking. "ooh, if I buy her dinner maybe she will marry me".

Don't be petty about it, there is a big difference in the situations. Some of you are acting like clucking hens right now.

Bible_Belt said:

So now, even proposing marriage is an implied, legally binding, contract?


Not exactly. Her recovery is based upon detrimental reliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Reliance-based_estoppels
The marriage proposal is a side issue. Her damages are based upon the money she lost relying on his promise of marriage, although the proposal itself is not a contract.

Any promise that someone else makes to you that you spend money to rely upon gives you a case against them if they later deny that promise. If she had not quit her job and moved there, she would not get any money.

Click to expand...

Jesu Kristo, do all you people have biblebelt on ignore? The case would be exaclty the same if the genders were reversed, or if they were both dudes, or whatever. the engagement was incidental. The media reported it as if the engagement was central to the case to get people to read it knowing it would cause sufficient knee jerk handwringing. jeeze.

don't be a fool and this won't happen to you.

Danger said:

Call me crazy but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call you crazy...