Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance after Las Vegas ‘hook up’ ends wedding plans

A Chicago woman sued her ex-fiance on Friday, charging their marriage plans fell apart after she found text messages showing he "hooked up" with a woman he met during his Las Vegas bachelor party.

Lauren Serafin filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Robert Leighton, alleging he has failed to reimburse her the $62,814 she spent preparing for the wedding and honeymoon.

..

The lawsuit, posted on the website onpointnews.com, alleges breach of the promise to marry and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Defendant had a fiduciary duty of implied fidelity to plaintiff," the lawsuit says, adding Serafin "suffered humiliation" by having to tell family members, friends and co-workers that the wedding was canceled and why.

Saying 170 people had planned to attend the wedding and reception, Serafin says in the suit she had reserved a banquet hall at the Ritz-Carlton Chicago and that this involved a cancellation penalty.

The suit says she made nonrefundable purchases of a wedding dress and veil, had reserved salon services, reserved a band, made a deposit with a florist, made nonrefundable purchases of dresses for bridesmaids and flower girls, spent money on invitations, made a deposit with a photographer, booked a hotel for a bachelorette party, booked a wedding shower at a restaurant and made nonrefundable reservations for airfare and a hotel for the honeymoon in Bora Bora.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/07/woman-seeks-62814-ex-fiance-after-las-vegas-hook-e/

we're 'screwed' if she wins this lawsuit...this will set extremely bad precedent and have ramifications this scorned woman hasn't even thought of. i empathize with her anger and hurt, but the courts are not a venue to get revenge for your personal life. she is an attorney and should know better. this case is beyond the garden variety suits over a ring and should be viewed as an unpermissable intrusion on our privacy and i believe it could have chilling effects on engagements...
 
It sounds like she can show where she paid penalties and costs that she is seeking to be reembursement for. That sounds legit to me.
 
WinterBorn said:
It sounds like she can show where she paid penalties and costs that she is seeking to be reembursement for. That sounds legit to me.
Click to expand...

i don't doubt her damages, but to hold him liable? should we go back to the 19th century where some engagements were considered contractual because the woman was essentially property or an employee? what if they got married and he divorced her or had it anulled a week a later? wedding costs, to my knowledge, are not recoverable in divorce proceedings.

as i understand the law now, an engagement is not a contractually binding promise. to hold that it is, would seriously intrude into our private lives. what if, when they ask - does anyone object - and someone does, one of the parties at the last minute agrees. do we now hold the objector liable for damages?
 
Yurt said:
i don't doubt her damages, but to hold him liable? should we go back to the 19th century where some engagements were considered contractual because the woman was essentially property or an employee? what if they got married and he divorced her or had it anulled a week a later? wedding costs, to my knowledge, are not recoverable in divorce proceedings.

as i understand the law now, an engagement is not a contractually binding promise. to hold that it is, would seriously intrude into our private lives. what if, when they ask - does anyone object - and someone does, one of the parties at the last minute agrees. do we now hold the objector liable for damages?
Click to expand...

If they were planning a wedding, he should pay for half of the expenses incurred, especially if he cheated on her causing the loss of monies spent.

This is not about revenge. Its about the man paying what he owes for the his wedding.
 
WinterBorn said:
If they were planning a wedding, he should pay for half of the expenses incurred, especially if he cheated on her causing the loss of monies spent.

This is not about revenge. Its about the man paying what he owes for the his wedding.
Click to expand...

so we now hold people liable for having sex with other people? you really want the government allowing you to be sued for that? that is quite an intrusion. what if he didn't cheat, what if he simply didn't love her? which is what he said. it wasn't the cheating, if you read the facts, he realized he didn't love her over a period of time after the cheating. i would argue there is always an inherent risk of the other party backing out....thats why its called "engagement" and not marriage. there is a distinct reason for that and she assumed the risk.

if you start holding people liable for bailing on weddings, you have created a massive government intrusion into people's personal lives. you still have not addressed whether someone simply bails on the day of or if an objector objects to the wedding. you're usually pretty objective, but it seems to me you want to hold this guy liable because he committed an act of cheating which you view as immoral. and since you often tell others laws should not be based on that type of morality, its puzzling why you believe so here.... what if he was gay, didn't know it, was at a party and some guy kissed him. then he realized a week later, he is gay and bails on the wedding.

still same opinion?
 
Yurt said:
so we now hold people liable for having sex with other people? you really want the government allowing you to be sued for that? that is quite an intrusion. what if he didn't cheat, what if he simply didn't love her? which is what he said. it wasn't the cheating, if you read the facts, he realized he didn't love her over a period of time after the cheating. i would argue there is always an inherent risk of the other party backing out....thats why its called "engagement" and not marriage. there is a distinct reason for that and she assumed the risk.

if you start holding people liable for bailing on weddings, you have created a massive government intrusion into people's personal lives. you still have not addressed whether someone simply bails on the day of or if an objector objects to the wedding. you're usually pretty objective, but it seems to me you want to hold this guy liable because he committed an act of cheating which you view as immoral. and since you often tell others laws should not be based on that type of morality, its puzzling why you believe so here.... what if he was gay, didn't know it, was at a party and some guy kissed him. then he realized a week later, he is gay and bails on the wedding.

still same opinion?
Click to expand...

But this is not punishment for his leaving.

She is suing him for actual costs of the cancellation of the wedding.


Yurt, suppose you and I decided to host a get-together for JPP. We decide to have it where I live, so I make reservations, order food, but alcohol (Capt is coming so that will be a big order), and reserve hotel rooms for everyone.

If you cancel the get-together, am I supposed to just eat all the expenses?



I'm not saying let there be any punitive damages, but the guy is being sued for actual expenses incurred by their wedding being cancelled.
 
WinterBorn said:
But this is not punishment for his leaving.

She is suing him for actual costs of the cancellation of the wedding.


Yurt, suppose you and I decided to host a get-together for JPP. We decide to have it where I live, so I make reservations, order food, but alcohol (Capt is coming so that will be a big order), and reserve hotel rooms for everyone.

If you cancel the get-together, am I supposed to just eat all the expenses?



I'm not saying let there be any punitive damages, but the guy is being sued for actual expenses incurred by their wedding being cancelled.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer so I'm just asking, the woman is the one who cancelled the wedding right and she is suing for costs? So the court has to decide whether the guys behavior was worthy of her cancelling the wedding?
 
WinterBorn said:
But this is not punishment for his leaving.

She is suing him for actual costs of the cancellation of the wedding.


Yurt, suppose you and I decided to host a get-together for JPP. We decide to have it where I live, so I make reservations, order food, but alcohol (Capt is coming so that will be a big order), and reserve hotel rooms for everyone.

If you cancel the get-together, am I supposed to just eat all the expenses?



I'm not saying let there be any punitive damages, but the guy is being sued for actual expenses incurred by their wedding being cancelled.
Click to expand...

your comparison falls flat for numerous reasons winter. 1. marriage is completely different than any other contract or relationship; 2. if we had no written contract, just a "plan" to host something, you would little standing as in your scenario, what could i possible do to cause everyone else not to come; 3. in your case, you seem to indicate we agreed to share the costs, in an engagement, no such agreement, implied or otherwise normally exists; 4. holding someone liable for bailing on a wedding chills marriage and relationships.

further, you still have not answered any of my questions. i've answered yours, would you be so kind as to reciprocate?

comparing the above to a marriage engagement is not even close to the same. as i said before, she assumed the risk he could back out. there are many states that don't allow any recovery, except the ring. unless you both agree to share the costs, he is not liable for any costs. what she is really saying is, the bastard should marry me whether he likes me or not. this is a form of backdoor slavery, because now, all he has to do, is go through with the act, then divorce a week a later. is that really want you want? because that is what you're going to get if people are afraid they might be sued for 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars. much cheaper to have damn wedding and then divorce.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not a lawyer so I'm just asking, the woman is the one who cancelled the wedding right and she is suing for costs? So the court has to decide whether the guys behavior was worthy of her cancelling the wedding?
Click to expand...

She canceled the wedding because he breached the contract that they had. I hope she wins and takes him to the cleaners. :good4u:
 
Yurt said:
an engagement is merely a promise. american law does not currently recognize an engagement as a contract, oral or implied. you would have to create a written contract between the parties.
Click to expand...

maybe. I know that oral contracts can hold validity in courts, but if you have any court opinions on the non-validity of engagements and contracts, i'd like to read them.
 
california law states this:

cal. civ code 43.4. A fraudulent promise to marry or to cohabit after marriage
does not give rise to a cause of action for damages.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
california law is like saying dictatorial directive but i'll certainly read askew
Click to expand...

legislative law trumps court law, unless case law (scotus or state sct) rules it unconstitutional. and the laws are hardly dictatorial.

pertinent parts of askew:

The California anti-heart-balm statutes which long ago did away with breach of promise actions establish a public policy against litigation of the affairs of the heart. This case may be gussied up as a fraud action, but it is still essentially a breach of promise suit.

Words of love, passion and sexual desire are simply unsuited to the cumbersome strictures of common law fraud and deceit. The idea that a judge, or jury of 12 solid citizens, can arbitrate whether an individual's romantic declarations at a certain time are true or false, or made with intent to deceive, seems almost ridiculously wooden, particularly where the statements were made prior to marriage

"The judiciary should not attempt to regulate all aspects of the human condition. Relationships may take varied forms and beget complications and entanglements which defy reason." (Douglas R. v. Suzanne M. (1985) 127 Misc.2d 745 [487 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245-246].)[

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13206246506096717220&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
 
Yurt said:
legislative law trumps court law, unless case law (scotus or state sct) rules it unconstitutional. and the laws are hardly dictatorial.

pertinent parts of askew:

The California anti-heart-balm statutes which long ago did away with breach of promise actions establish a public policy against litigation of the affairs of the heart. This case may be gussied up as a fraud action, but it is still essentially a breach of promise suit.

Words of love, passion and sexual desire are simply unsuited to the cumbersome strictures of common law fraud and deceit. The idea that a judge, or jury of 12 solid citizens, can arbitrate whether an individual's romantic declarations at a certain time are true or false, or made with intent to deceive, seems almost ridiculously wooden, particularly where the statements were made prior to marriage

"The judiciary should not attempt to regulate all aspects of the human condition. Relationships may take varied forms and beget complications and entanglements which defy reason." (Douglas R. v. Suzanne M. (1985) 127 Misc.2d 745 [487 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245-246].)[

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13206246506096717220&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Click to expand...

how i read this is the cali legislature eliminating personal responsibility from it's constituents. something they are fond of doing until it turns out violent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top