Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance

SmarterThanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

how do you get that??? they are eliminating government FORCING you to take responsibility for something the government has no business legislatiing or presiding over. the legislation does not at all eliminate personal responsibility, if you want to pay, the pay.

i'm surprised at your stance given your strong libertarian leanings
 
Yurt said:
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...
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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...

LOL...that came out of left field
 
Yurt said:
how do you get that??? they are eliminating government FORCING you to take responsibility for something the government has no business legislatiing or presiding over. the legislation does not at all eliminate personal responsibility, if you want to pay, the pay.

i'm surprised at your stance given your strong libertarian leanings
Click to expand...

libertarian leanings are strongly inclined to contractual obligations. The right to contract must be upheld and enforced. the government enforcing contractual obligations is actually quite in line with the constitution.
 
for the first time ever, Yurt is 100% right. For the first time ever, Yurt survived over 20 posts without a complete, utter skewering.

She does not have the right to sue. This should be thrown out. There is no contract. And there should be no legal ability for someone to use the system to legislate morality any more so than for the system to di it itself.

Funny, you have guys like SouthernKlan now wanting the bench to "legislate morality".

That little wimp is nothing but a comedy gone horribly wrong.

Good job Yurt. Maybe in another 7 years, you'll be right about something again.

:clink:
 
Beefy said:
for the first time ever, Yurt is 100% right. For the first time ever, Yurt survived over 20 posts without a complete, utter skewering.

She does not have the right to sue. This should be thrown out. There is no contract. And there should be no legal ability for someone to use the system to legislate morality any more so than for the system to di it itself.

Funny, you have guys like SouthernKlan now wanting the bench to "legislate morality".

That little wimp is nothing but a comedy gone horribly wrong.

Good job Yurt. Maybe in another 7 years, you'll be right about something again.

:clink:
Click to expand...

i hope it only takes 7 years, it took 25 years this time :(
 
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...

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
 
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...

F*ck that dude. She choose to break off the marriage because he claimed to have "hooked up". Love to see the court try and legislate that activity.
 
Yurt said:
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...
Click to expand...

Charlie Sheen may have it right.

I heard he only paid $30,000 (a girl) and afterwords started looking for new girls.:awesome:
 
Schadenfreude said:
lol, it will be the usual lawyers full employment on this one and may go to scotus
Click to expand...

Doubt it.

Cawacko is right. She broke it off. If the courts decide to even hear extenuating circumstances on an unbinding agreement to begin with, then we have a horrible precedent where contracts are redefined and nebulous to the point where anything someone claims is a contract, becomes a contract.

Jeesus. Do you people even think about what the hell you're talking about?

She broke it off. Where are the reasons for it going to be legally binding and where are they not, if this bullshit case goes through?

Do you not look forward more than 5 lousy seconds?
 
Beefy said:
for the first time ever, Yurt is 100% right. For the first time ever, Yurt survived over 20 posts without a complete, utter skewering.

She does not have the right to sue. This should be thrown out. There is no contract. And there should be no legal ability for someone to use the system to legislate morality any more so than for the system to di it itself.

Funny, you have guys like SouthernKlan now wanting the bench to "legislate morality".

That little wimp is nothing but a comedy gone horribly wrong.

Good job Yurt. Maybe in another 7 years, you'll be right about something again.

:clink:
Click to expand...

Its amazing what can be accomplished on a board full of misogynists... :(
 
Wish I could have gotten off that cheap!
If you hook up with a woman and stay with her any lenght of time you are going to pay to unhook up.
 
Yurt said:
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...
Click to expand...
"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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top