• Breach of Promise to Marry Ends in $50K Judgment
    9 replies, posted
[quote] (CN) - A Georgia man who left his fiancee for another woman must pay $50,000 for breaching his promise to marry her, the state appeals court ruled. Melissa Cooper lived with Christopher Ned Kelley in 2000 and the couple had a child together. In 2004, Kelley proposed and gave her a ring valued at approximately $10,000. When Cooper later discovered that Kelley had been seeing another woman, however, dating back to before the proposal, Kelley pledged to end the relationship and marry Cooper. Cooper then learned of Kelley's relationship with yet another woman in 2011. Kelly told Cooper to move out along with their child and another child from Cooper's previous relationship. Cooper sued Kelley for a variety of claims. After the issues of paternity and child support were settled, she continued with her claims of fraud and breach of promise to marry. The trial court ruled in Cooper's favor, awarding damages and attorneys' fees totaling $50,000. Kelley based his subsequent appeal on precedent from the Georgia Supreme Court that an unmarried couple living together in a sexual union is part of a meretricious relationship. He said the promise to marry was part of a meretricious relationship and was unenforceable. Merriam Webster defines meretricious as "having the nature of prostitution." The state Court of Appeals noted on Nov. 22 that "the meretricious relationship defense typically is asserted as a defense to a claim of breach of a financial agreement or arrangement between two parties when the agreement is seen as being in exchange for one party's agreement to cohabit with the other party and provide sexual relations." Such a defense has been held inapplicable, however, "where the object of the contract is not illegal or against public policy, but where the illegality or immorality is only collateral or remotely connected to the contract," precedent states. The court's divided seven-judge panel affirmed the ruling for Cooper. "The object of such a promise is not illegal or against public policy. In Georgia, the legislature has specifically announced that 'marriage is encouraged by the law,'" Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote for the majority. "Kelley has not cited any cases, nor has our research uncovered one, where the meretricious relationship defense was asserted or upheld in response to a claim of breach of promise to marry," she added. "We therefore conclude that the fact that the parties lived together both before and after the marriage proposal is only collateral to the promise to marry."[/quote] [url]http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/05/63483.htm[/url] Don't make false promises! But fuck $50k is alot of money
If they have a child together and were engaged, it's pretty fucking silly of him to claim it was a meretricious relationship. And $50k probably isn't alot to this guy if he was willing to give a woman a $10k ring without any real intention of marrying her.
Dickbag got what he deserved. [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] I hope he gets to pay child support too if he is gonna leave the kid.
Good, marriage is a contract and betraying legitimate expectations is a solid ground for compensations.
dumb old laws, the guy is retarded yes, but this goes to show that the court room is a playhouse and you go just to see if your lawyers better...at bringing up old shit.
[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;43110493]dumb old laws, the guy is retarded yes, but this goes to show that the court room is a playhouse and you go just to see if your lawyers better...at bringing up old shit.[/QUOTE] He kicked his fiancee and his own child out of their residency of 13 years. The least he could do is provide them with money to get on their feet and fifty thousand dollars isn't a huge sum for something like that.
So the woman's last name is Cooper and the man's last name is Kelley? Confusing to read...
[QUOTE=deltasquid;43110379]Good, marriage is a contract and betraying legitimate expectations is a solid ground for compensations.[/QUOTE] But they weren't married
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43112142]But they weren't married[/QUOTE] he breached his promise to marry her though, a breach of promise is illegal, especially if you act in reliance of the term promised and don't get stopped early on from doing so, which is what seems to have happened here.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43112142]But they weren't married[/QUOTE] promise to close a contract is still a contract. Usually called contract about a future contract.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.