No need to be snarky. Just because Sangha said it and you repeat it twice, doesn't make it accurate. From the story: "Smith said he believes the trial judge's monetary award was derived from about half the value of the home that Kelley purchased, which was worth around $86,000." If you have other details, I'd be interested to see it.
Sorry, but that seems like an opinion to me, not a statement from the trial judge. Also, half of $86,000 is not $50,000. The trial judge made a ruling as he determined based on some level agreement between the two civil parties. People can choose to agree or disagree with the opinion (after all, that's what we do here), but that doesn't change the results.
You may reject the idea of an oral contract but clearly this judge did not. That is his role, to make that judgment.
Contract Law - An Introduction
Georgia must also not allow palimony suits.
No need to be snarky. Just because Sangha said it and you repeat it twice, doesn't make it accurate. From the story: "Smith said he believes the trial judge's monetary award was derived from about half the value of the home that Kelley purchased, which was worth around $86,000." If you have other details, I'd be interested to see it.
Sorry, but that seems like an opinion to me, not a statement from the trial judge. Also, half of $86,000 is not $50,000. The trial judge made a ruling as he determined based on some level agreement between the two civil parties. People can choose to agree or disagree with the opinion (after all, that's what we do here), but that doesn't change the results.
No need to be snarky. Just because Sangha said it and you repeat it twice, doesn't make it accurate. From the story: "Smith said he believes the trial judge's monetary award was derived from about half the value of the home that Kelley purchased, which was worth around $86,000." If you have other details, I'd be interested to see it.
Sorry, but that seems like an opinion to me, not a statement from the trial judge. Also, half of $86,000 is not $50,000. The trial judge made a ruling as he determined based on some level agreement between the two civil parties. People can choose to agree or disagree with the opinion (after all, that's what we do here), but that doesn't change the results.
But the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled on Nov. 22 to uphold the trial court's decision, saying the promise to marry is enforceable and the fact that the couple lived together before and after the marriage proposal is only collateral to the promise to marry.
I suppose it could be a combination of the judge finding for the woman and based on the value of the home, fees incurred in procuring the facilities and services associated with the cancelled wedding could comprise the monetary damages awarded? It is a bit hard to determine based on the information reported so far.I wasn't being snarky.
After reading the article again, I think the award was based on breach of promise, based on this:
I'd say, then, that the monetary damages were based on the value of the house . . . ?
For the record, I agree with the decision.
I find that I agree with Maggie and Sangha here. People should be free to change their minds and get out of a relationship or engagement. That said I think it is only fair people should also be free to recoup their financial losses when that happens. In this case the couple had the house and some children together, there may be other financial concerns that were not reported on in the article. Weddings are damned expensive affairs there day, well at least the more ostentatious ones are. So it is very easy to imagine many thousands of dollars spent on booking a wedding/reception hall, associated services and fees added to the split on the value on the home.
Yes I would say so as well. I do know that in some divorce cases I have seen where infidelity was involved that can play a big role in damages. And of course wit this one, there is that little thing about already being married.:shock:What does it for me is that Cooper entered into the engagement in bad faith. If he had been upfront about his own doubts as well as, uh, that little thing about already being married, and she still agreed to leave her job and state for him? I might think a little differently.
I wasn't being snarky.
After reading the article again, I think the award was based on breach of promise, based on this:
I'd say, then, that the monetary damages were based on the value of the house . . . ?
For the record, I agree with the decision.
For the record, I dont support the judge's finding for her. I understand it, completely, or almost at least. From an ethical standpoint, the guy was wrong in so many ways. But she was not forced to stay there. And I see women make really bad decisions this way all the time and that doesnt make it ok. You have to take more responsibility for yourself. Dont have a kid with a guy you're not married to....it's not a guarantee but it protects you & kid more....dont let a man tell you what to do. If you do compromise, dont be a doormat and make sure you do get your side of the deal, dont be stupid and stay with a cheating guy. Dont believe in some fantasy that society sells you. The longer you stay, the more kids you have, the harder it is to leave.
I dont think she's entitled to anything but the ring....sell that for $10,000...and child support. I dont 'like' that, but I believe it's it legally correct.
She was common street trash anyway. She had 2 kids with 2 different baby daddies.
She was looking for a payday. Her meal ticket bolted for better ass, and she decided to get paid on his wallet.
If I was him, I'd be plastering naked pics of her online. She deserves nothing less.
Now we are at semantics. A breach of promise and a breach of contract is a distinction without much of a difference. I too agree with the decision.
At first blush I thought you gotta be kidding. However upon reading into the matter and given the fraud committed here, plus the fact the woman quit her job and then was asked to move out of the home they shared by the philandering fiancee? I'm less inclined to be shocked at the verdict though not sure how I feel about the legality of it. In any case the man's excuse is just stupid. :roll:
Ga. Man Must Pay $50,000 After Breaking Engagement to Fiancee, Appeals Court Says - YahooA Georgia man is undecided about whether to challenge a state appeals court's decision that he must pay his jilted former fiancée $50,000, his lawyer says.
Accused of breach of promise to marry, part of his defense was that he never said the words, "Will you marry me?" to her, the court filing states.
On Dec. 23, 2004, Christopher Ned Kelley, who works in IT, gave Melissa Cooper a ring valued at about $10,000, a court document states; she accepted and the two moved to a new home. Since 2000, Kelly, had lived with Cooper, who also had a child with him, the filing says.
She says she left her job at his request to stay home and raise their child and her child from a previous relationship, according to a court document.
But after the proposal, she learned that Kelley had been in a two-year relationship with another woman that began before the proposal. After Cooper confronted him, she agreed to stay with him "because of his pledges not to see the other woman again and his promises thereafter to marry Cooper," the court document states.
But in April 2011, when Cooper confronted him about a relationship with yet another woman, he told her that he wanted to be with that woman and that Cooper and the children should move out.
"Cooper was 'devastated' by this development," the court document stated.
In response, Cooper filed a lawsuit for a number of claims, including fraud and breach of contract to marry. The Coweta County Superior Court awarded her $43,500 and attorney fees of $6,500.
And apparently with more than one woman in his life, he got off quite often.:2razz:[/COLOR][/B]
If every thing stated in the OP is correct that whore-dog got off easy.
Guess GA doesn't have common law marriage otherwise he'd be on the hook for half of everything and he'd be moving not her. They set up home as a family and she kept the covenant, he didn't, he should pay through the nose.
Harder and Harder to be man when it comes to the American Legal System.
I don't think there's a basis for this. No one made her quit her job, no matter who suggested she do so. No one made her move in. No one made her do any of that stuff. People break promises all the time. It's unfortunately part of being alive, and I don't think that's grounds to actually sue someone. You make your bed and if you don't like how it's made, then just chalk it up to a learning experience. Hell, hawk the ring. It's a gift, so it's hers. There's 10 grand right there.
She's basically suing because life doesn't always turn out how you want. That's stupid. And I mean, if a guy gives you a ring and you're still not married 10 years later, you should join us here in reality and realize it's never gonna happen. That combined with the fact that she also had an affair, and I don't see where she gets off trying to sue him.
Georgia does not recognize cohabitating couples if they have not professed themselves to be married in common law, but there is still a procedure for divvying up property and custody/child support in these cases..That should be all she's doing, not suing
Lol to child support. Can't get away from using the power of the law, can you?
Harder and Harder to be man when it comes to the American Legal System.
It's harder to be reliable and honest and not be a weaselly scumbag?
Triola. I hope her cancer was nighmarishly painful and she died a slow death.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?