Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance

apple0154 said:
Seraphin and money. It reminded me of a movie titled "Seraphin - Un Homme et Son Péché". (Seraphin, a man and his sin.)

"Séraphin unfolds against the severe and achingly beautiful landscape of rural Quebec in 1889, where young lovers are torn from each other when a bankrupt shopkeeper forces his daughter into an arranged marriage to save his business. But true love cannot be denied... "
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3331391769/ (Actually, the father/shopkeeper is against the marriage but the daughter wants to help her father avoid bankruptcy so she marries the guy to whom the money is owed in exchange for canceling the debt.

In the French Quebec culture calling someone a "seraphin" means a Scrooge but much worse.

And that's today's trivia. :)
Click to expand...

I think I'll ask the Canadian girl from Quebec if she knows any Seraphins back home I could meet the next time I see her. Would she necessarily get the reference, or is it really obscure?
 
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...

That's not what judge Judy says when she makes the woman give back the ring when an engagement is broken. :cof1:
 
christiefan915 said:
That's not what judge Judy says when she makes the woman give back the ring when an engagement is broken. :cof1:
Click to expand...


My understanding is that an engagement ring can be considered a conditional gift and that, if the condition (marriage) is not satisfied, the gift must be returned.
 
NigelTufnel said:
My understanding is that an engagement ring can be considered a conditional gift and that, if the condition (marriage) is not satisfied, the gift must be returned.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Planning for parties etc. is not a gift thus the lady shall not win her case.
 
Threedee said:
I think I'll ask the Canadian girl from Quebec if she knows any Seraphins back home I could meet the next time I see her. Would she necessarily get the reference, or is it really obscure?
Click to expand...

It's an old reference but, apparently, fairly well known in the French culture. I'd venture she's heard of it.
 
cawacko said:
Thank you. Planning for parties etc. is not a gift thus the lady shall not win her case.
Click to expand...


My guess it that, to the extent that she is claiming a breach of promise to marry or some such, she will not win her case. Whether she will be successful in her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is another matter altogether.
 
NigelTufnel said:
My guess it that, to the extent that she is claiming a breach of promise to marry or some such, she will not win her case. Whether she will be successful in her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is another matter altogether.
Click to expand...

She went through his phone to find where he texted a friend 'i hooked up' in Vegas. Does he have any expected right to privacy in his phone vis-a-vis his fiance?

Or let me ask this way would a court view it differently if he came back from his bachelor party and said 'honey I hooked up with a girl in Vegas' (so he was purposefully flaunting it) vs. her having to snoop to find out he hooked up?
 
Schadenfreude said:
seems to me that she incurred fiscal liabilities based on his promise of marriage with his knowledge and consent

this may have been a verbal contract and as such has the full force of law behind it

this may set a precedent for new law
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Hooking up while engaged. Perhaps we can look to Cheech and Chong for proper punishment. They relate a case concerned with forbidden sex and the judge, looking at the Plaintiff, instructs the Bailiff to "whack his "pee-pee".

Reference:Leslie Horwinkle in "Tripping in Court" :)
 
Damocles said:
"We're screwed?"

How about just doing what you are supposed to be doing.

First, it doesn't necessarily have to be the woman suing. What if you spent that cash only to find your fiance was hooking yesterday and you're not even her pimp? Seriously, dude deserves to pay for that kind of crap.
Click to expand...

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.


and the court eloquently stated:

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."
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
My understanding is that an engagement ring can be considered a conditional gift and that, if the condition (marriage) is not satisfied, the gift must be returned.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the wedding, in this case paid for by one party, be considered a gift also?
 
Yurt said:
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.


and the court eloquently stated:
Click to expand...
That's not what she is saying. She doesn't want the dude to marry her, his junk has been wandering into disease-land and back.

What you are saying is the only way for her to get her money back would be to have married him then divorced him a week later taking him to the cleaners in order to regain the costs of planning the wedding. Do you really want that?
 
Damocles said:
That's not what she is saying. She doesn't want the dude to marry her, his junk has been wandering into disease-land and back.

What you are saying is the only way for her to get her money back would be to have married him then divorced him a week later taking him to the cleaners in order to regain the costs of planning the wedding. Do you really want that?
Click to expand...

thats not what i said at all. i'm saying, YOUR solution is to have the guy go through with the wedding just to avoid any liability for damages. do you really want that?

fact is, in most weddings and likely this one, she agreed to bear the costs. there is always a risk that he will back out or someone will speak against the wedding. if you start allowing liability for backing out of marriages, you are allowing the government to greatly intrude on privacy and matters, which as the court noted, have no place being judged by a court or jury.

california has wisely legislated my point of view and the case i gave you explains it quite well. whats next damo? if a girlfriend makes plans to go hawaii, buys the tickets and then the couple breaks up....the other person is responsible for half simply because he agreed to go? the courts will be inundated and people will now have to engage lawyers to help them sign contracts freeing them from liability in case they break up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top