I DO think she ought to give the ring back though...

[Ndgo]

Yeah! This is what I'm talking about! Very suprising verdict... love it!


Left at altar, she gets $150K in court
RoseMary Shell gave up her job for fiancé: ‘He made a promise to me’
By Bob Considine
TODAYShow.com contributor
updated 9:34 a.m. ET, Fri., July. 25, 2008
Men (or women) who decide to get on bended knee: Be warned. You could find yourself on both knees, facing a judge instead of a justice of the peace.

That’s what happened in Florida this week, when a woman was awarded $150,000 after suing her former fiancé for calling off their wedding.

For RoseMary Shell, the jilted bride-to-be who left a high-paying job in Pensacola to live with her prospective partner in Gainesville, there was a “wow” in lieu of a vow.

“[I was] a little bit [surprised], but I was thrilled,” Shell told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira on Friday. “But I felt like justice was really done.”

For Wayne Gibbs, the ex-fiancé, a case of cold feet came at a price.

“Mr. Gibbs feels that the verdict did not accurately reflect the evidence and will appeal,” Hammond Law, Gibbs’ attorney, told TODAY in a statement. “In addition, there are significant legal questions to address, including, but not limited to, whether or not breach of promise to marry is a viable action under Georgia law in 2008.”

From bliss to diss
It was 2001 when Shell and Gibbs, who were each divorced with grown children, met through mutual friends and began dating.

According to Shell, the couple had intended to get married when her youngest son went off to college in 2005. When that didn’t happen, she broke up with Gibbs and moved to Pensacola, where she landed a human resources job that paid $81,000 with benefits. Trying to carry on with her life, she started to date someone new.

But in October 2006, Gibbs asked her to move back to Gainesville — and he proposed with a 2-carat diamond ring. Shell said yes. A wedding date of Dec. 2 was set.

About a month after Shell moved back in with Gibbs, however, Gibbs expressed second thoughts in a note he left in their bathroom: He wanted to postpone the wedding.

Gibbs and Shell stayed together a few more months before officially parting in March 2007. Shell chose to take legal action and sued three months later.

“Primarily because he made a promise to me and I relied on that promise and gave up a lot of things because of that promise,” Shell explained.

“And I suffered significantly for it,” she added. “I just felt like people shouldn’t be allowed to do people that way.”

During the three-day trial, Shell testified that she had given up a good salary with benefits to move back with Gibbs. In her current job, in the accounting department at North Georgia College and State University, Shell is making $31,000 a year.

Gibbs testified that he took Shell on several skiing trips during their renewed partnership, made house payments for her, and gave her $30,000 to pay off some of her credit-card debt. He claimed he got cold feet after learning she had even more debt.

Shell disputed that Gibbs was unaware of her overall debt of $42,000. “It’s simply not true,” Shell told Vieira. “We discussed my debts before I left Florida. We discussed my debts when I came back from Florida. He had a list. He knew exactly what I owed. That’s all just kind of a smokescreen.”

A precedent?
After hearing the case, a Hall County jury awarded Shell $150,000 on Wednesday.

Lydia Sartain, Shell’s attorney, said her only reservations about taking on the case were over the “conservative” nature of area residents who might make up the jury.

“We really debated quite extensively whether to bring the case,” Sartain said. “But we just felt so strongly that in this case he had told her to quit her job and she relied on his promise. He came to her in Florida and moved her back into his house, took steps above and beyond the usual ‘Will you marry me, let’s plan a wedding’ and then somebody backs out.”

“Really, we believe now that he never intended to follow through on the promise to marry,” Sartain added.

Sartain also told Vieira that she hopes the case sets a precedent that an engagement can be a binding contract: “When you give your word to do something and you cause people to rely on it to their detriment, then you may be held accountable for any damages that you cause.”

As for her engagement ring, which she displayed to Vieira and TODAY viewers, Shell said she does not know the value — but she will try to sell it.

“It means nothing now,” she said.

[MzSheel]

I actually don't agree with this verdict because it seems to not give him the right to cancel the transaction before committing himself in marriage.  If he had suddenly kicked her out and left on her own w/o a place to live, etc., then she would have suffered more damages.  As it stands in the article, though, that doesn't seem to be the case.  She is just disappointed and scorned, and wants revenge.  She took a gamble that had risks in leaving her job - but it was her choice.  From her debt ratio, it looks like it was not much of a decision to ponder.  That she gave up a higher paying job for a lower paying one doesn't matter.  Apparently she wasn't handling her finances well even at a higher pay rate.

I mean, let her keep the ring - but $150K is in excess IMHO.

[philnation]

Amen MzSheel... I wonder about the precedent this sets, especially in what's already a very litigious society.

Not only was moving back with him entirely her choice - she wasn't coerced into it, based on the story at least - but from the story, it seems she decided rather abruptly to go back to him, without much thought given to it.  That doesn't make much sense to me even if they lived right down the street from one another, let alone in another city.

[oceanus1]

http://www.popehat.com/2008/07/24/dont-marry-in-haste-repent-at-leisure/

Wayne Gibbs paid over $30,000 of her debts, and found out she lied about having even more debts.   That’s why he changed his mind about marrying her.  He should sue HER (if he hasn’t already).  He dodged a buttet by not marrying her.

I don’t have any feelings one way or the other about the ring, don't think it's that important.  She moved back in with him so he would pay the bills.  No one held a gun to her head to force her to quit a high paying job and accept a lower salary.  Stupid jealous beyatch.

Hope she never collects a dime.

People get their hearts broken every day.  Relationships end every day.  I’d hate to see the legal system get tied up with this garbage.

[Ndgo]

One of my favorite books is "The Little Prince" By Antoine De Saint-Exupery. One of the most haunting phrases that stuck with me was "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."

In the encounter between The Little Prince and the fox, the fox says..."To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world..."

I do think that you have a responsibility for those that you tame. Once this man stepped in and made "her" his unique in all the word and forged a bond, grooming this woman to be his wife, his intended... he has a moral responsibility to her.

Now of course, I don't believe that he should have been forced to marry her but I do believe that because of his actions, he has the moral responsibility to leave her in at least the same position before his promise of marriage.  And now this court has added legal teeth to enforce some moral responsiblities. There are now legal consequences for our moral choices.

I don't doubt that the verdict will be appealled and probably overturned, but it's nice to see "doing right by somebody" the rule of land for as long as it lasts.

[Tranquility68]

yikes! I see some lawyers getting some new bidness out the blue for this kind of thing...hell I too would have gotten cold feet if I found my intended had more debt than they initially disclosed.  But wait, did they not share credit reports, they never lie...maybe he didn't do HIS due diligence....

[Ndgo]

I don't think that her debt had anything to do with it. I think he knew about the full extent of her finances - I believe her on that account - that there was a list. I don't even think that THE money was the issue at all. Here's why... He knew she was bringing her debts into the marriage. He even threw in 30k+ to offset it. He had it and more to give... and he did that freely and willingly. And I don't blame the guy for not paying everything off for her.... She was working... had a good job too... she could have quite easily paid off the balance of the debt by herself with no sweat.

Actually, using the numbers reported in the news... the difference he saying he didn't know about was 12k. I doubt he dumped his bride to be for 12k. Heck, a 2-carat diamond is easily 2x that amount. He didn't even bother to ask for it back. And I doubt it was just cold feet either. The only other logical reason is another woman. And I betcha if I googled up some of the local papers in Jacksonville, the details will be all fleshed out. I would not be suprised to find they had pictures of him cheating on her while they were engaged.

It was a joint decision that led her to leaving a good-paying job in Florida to move back to Gainesville to be with him. It was a joint decision to bring her into his home and start their life together.  I think that the consequences and reprecussions of his failure to live up to his promise ALSO should be shared jointly. She suffered significant financial losses when he reneged on that promise.  I think the verdict was fair and a balanced way to mitigate the consequences of their joint decisions. The verdict amount awarded by the jury probably calculates one year's annual salary, + bonus, insurance and other job benefit amounts. So he got off fairly easy. It's going to take her years IF ever to make it back to where she was financially... especially at her age AND in this economy. So I wouldn't even be suprised if he just paid up and let it go.

The breach of contract angle is interesting.  The breach of promise to marry is a common law contract action.  Dang, even if you contract to buy a house or even a car, and reneged on that contract... while you are allowed out of the contract ... you don't get away scott-free. You are going to pay some financial  penalities to cover the losses or costs of doing business. How much more so in this the case of a broken engagement. I think this verdict is a cause for celebration.

You ARE responsibile for what you tame.

[Legacy]

More encouraging reasons for men to consider marriage. Let me guess, she also entitled to 90% of his assets because they were almost married? Your sense of entitlement is beyond belief.



Pathetic...