A Georgia woman was awarded $150,000 by a jury after she sued her ex-fiancé for breach of contract. RoseMary Shell’s former love called off their wedding three days before the big event – and did it by leaving her a note in the bathroom. What a classy guy.
Shell says she left a job which paid $81,000 a year along with friends and family in Florida to move to Georgia to be with Wayne Gibbs. Gibbs claims that he called off the wedding because Shell was drowning in debt – which she and her lawyer refute.
Shell argued her fiance’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs and she said she has suffered financial losses since their break-up. She also said she has suffered emotionally.
Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom.
Closing arguments were heard Wednesday morning and the jury awarded Shell $150,000 by Wednesday afternoon. “People shouldn’t be allowed to do that and hopefully he’ll think twice before he does it to someone else,” said Shell.
[From ABC affiliate WSBT]
RoseMary Shell and her lawyer appeared on the Today show this morning to discuss the judgment. Wayne Gibbs chose not to appear, but his lawyer did.
Speaking to Meredith Vieira on Friday’s Today show, where she appeared with her attorney Lydia J. Sartain, Shell refuted Gibbs’s claim that she was swimming in debt. The allegation, she said, is “simply not true.”
While Gibbs did not appear on Today, his attorney, Hammond Law, reportedly told jurors in his closing arguments for the breach-of-contract suit: “You would be sending the message that if you have a dispute with somebody and you think they have been a scoundrel, go get a lawyer and hope the Brink’s truck backs up to the jury room.” He added, “If you award one penny, you’re saying, ‘File frivolous lawsuits.’ “
[From People]
This is one of those cases that garners a lot of publicity and heated arguments. I can really understand both sides of the issue. On the one hand, no one should be forced to marry someone they don’t want to marry. An engagement in and of itself isn’t generally considered a legal contract; the marriage is the legal contract. But you could argue that the engagement is the agreement to enter into the contract, and that was broken. But the alternative seems pretty unfair: marry someone you don’t want to be with?
All that said, RoseMary Shell gave up a high paying job to be with Wayne Gibbs, and he knew that. However it doesn’t seem like he gave up much to be with her. I’ve read several articles, and it doesn’t seem true that Shell had a great deal of debt. It sounds more like a legal excuse Gibbs or his attorneys were using.
I could understand if Shell wanted to recoup the wedding costs, but obviously this judgment was punitive. It makes for some interesting discussions because both sides have a point.
The fact is, having lots of credit card debt can wreck any relationship. I’ve heard of many fiances getting dumped when it was discovered they had massive credit card debt, or owed $100,000 – $200,000 in student loans. Nobody wants to start out married life saddled in debt.
I also think with regard to the wedding, that its time men ponied up half the wedding expenses. Brides and/or their families have traditionally been required to pay for most of the wedding expenses. This is simply not fair.
Was the ‘Dear John’ on a post-it?
I think what makes me side slightly with the woman is the fact that it happened a) so late and b) in the way it did
If he’d broke it off a month earlier in an actual conversation, it would have been different. But this sounds more like he got cold feet, changed his mind, and just left it until the very last moment to do something about it.
Just like property, Debt accrued before the marriage is not his.
He is an ass for the way he broke off with her.
I don’t think the jury went overboard at all. He should have been man, or Bea Arthured – can’t help it, Golden Girls is still on my mind – enough to have an honest discussion with her about changing his mind regarding marriage. It wouldn’t have mattered the cause, people change their minds every day about getting married for whatever reason.
He should also have offered to help her relocate back home if that’s where she wanted to go, or do whatever he could to help her get re-situated. It’s the right thing to do. His method just shows what a callous, selfish, chicken**** he really is.
Yea Jury!
Hm….something about this doesn’t sit right with me. If she was suing him for recouped losses of the wedding plans, then fine. But suing him for breach of contract because he chose not to marry her? Not so sure about that logic.
Just when you thought scumbag lawyers had thought of every possible way to set money-making precedents.
The way he broke up with her shows he “never was that into her” – and if he’d been honest, she wouldn’t have quit the good job and her home for him.
I know I’m assuming this part of the story is true, but if it is, I think the sum is not crazy – as compared to getting millions because you got burned by spilling coffee on yourself or putting your poodle in a microwave oven – infamous cases often used to show how absurd the American law system can be.
Who’d have thought coffee’s hot or that microwaves don’t gently dry your pet’s fur but cook it?! 🙄
this lady is a complete #@$%^ and deserves nothing. i hope he counter sues her for 150K.
I don’t care if this was a wedding or someone installing a roof….It is a contract pay-up.
You know, $150K isn’t that much money — she has had her whole life derailed. She lost a lot of income and it takes a while to find a new job in that salary range, so she has lost opportunity costs. And by the time she gets back to her hometown, finds a place to live, has moving expenses, pays off wedding expenses that she can’t get back (not with three days’ notice!). . . it really adds up. If she sold her old home and has to go through another closing to purchase a new home. . . all that really adds up. I doubt she will come out “ahead.”
She is not suing him because he broke his promise to marry her. She is suing him because she relied on his promise to marry her, so she quit her job and moved to be with him – incurring monetary losses. This is about lost money, not lost love. Duh.
The legal concepts are lost on most of the posters here.
Shockingly enough, I agree with Cindy Kennedy! Obviously the jury thought an engagement was leagally binding. And I have to agree with them…
So what some of you are saying is that if a person realizes that they don’t love their soon-to-be-spouse they should just go ahead and marry into a loveless marriage anyway? How is that a good thing?
Cindy Kennedy: The legal concepts are lost on most of the posters here.
There was a time when legal was akin to lawful, as in being in accordance with common law- now it means some sort of exploitable loophole where money can be shaken out.
Neither one’s getting my sympathy.
The man was an ass for the way he left his fiancee, but…going to court over it? Sorry hon, unless there are children involved, and unless he actually stole anything from you, it’s a personal issue between the two of you. Deal with it.
Sorry to hear the jury awarded $$…looking forward to more frivlous lawsuits tying up the courts and sucking up our tax dollars. Super.
Considering half of all marriages end in divorce, he probably saved a bundle by having to pony up 150,000.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Maybe he was her last chance at marriage and he monopolised her and left her in such a fashion that she felt the need to sue. We don’t know what happened in private, there may be good reasons why she did this that she is not prepared to say publicaly.
“this lady is a complete #@$%^ and deserves nothing. i hope he counter sues her for 150K.”
Sorry “rj” but the jury saw differently!
Plus, why is she crazy? Because she’s upset that her fiance broke up with her via a note left in the bathroom??
Ask yourself honestly how you’d feel if that happened to you.
I don’t know if I would have sued. I wouldn’t have moved out there in the first place without a marriage certificate in my hands, but that’s just me. Sometimes, people are too impetuous, and this is the result. She got screwed because she put her faith in him, without anything other than the benefit of the doubt to hang on to, and it cost her a great deal…but it was her choice. On a moral standpoint, she should have had to deal with the consequences. Ethically, he’s responsible for helping her out, since it was his promise of marriage that was the extenuating circumstance that caused her to move in the first place. Tough spot, this one. 😐
Hag ain’t ever getting another date again! Posting your face on tv is idiotic!
Verbal contracts can and are very much binding. This man prompted her to quit her job, move in with him and so on and so forth and then after she does all that he leaves her high and dry. I’m not sure she should have sued because engagements are broken every day, however she did give up a lot financially and took him at his word, then got dumped.
You people don’t get it. There were monetary damages in this case. Its not just about being a “jilted bride”. She DID lose money through the actions of this man.
Never mind, nobody here is educated enough to understand the legal concept of damages and why the jury awarded her compensation.
I guess according to Cindy Kennedy, everyone but her on this site is an uneducated fool who aren’t entitled to their own opinion.
I do not agree with this judgement. Did this woman not look for another job before relocating? If she was unable to do so, how about having the guy move near her? It sounds to me like she jumped into this without much thought.
The only thing this guy should have to pay for are all the bills from the canceled wedding, since he is the one who canceled. All her other bills are her problem, since she made the decision to move and leave her job. People have a right to back out of being married. This guy does not sound like he would make a great hubby anyway.
Because of this, we will prob see pre pre-nups!!
BTW just because a jury or judge agreed with her does not mean that was the correct thing to do. Juries and judges make the wrong rulings all the time (ie innocent people in jail, guilty people let off the hook and commiting crimes again)
Cindy Kennedy, what YOU seem to be failing to grasp is that many of us aren’t looking at this in a legal aspect, since the legal ramifications are quite obvious in that she lost money because of this man, and the only recourse for her was to sue to recoup her losses, in some capacity. Instead, we’re looking at this more personally, emotionally. We ARE capable of doing that, being humans and all.
Daisy fly…stfu.
So when a bride runs away its made into a movie but when a man cancels his wedding he has to pay, crazy! Men should wake up and take this country back.
But wasn’t it HER choice to move from Florida to be with this man? Nobody pointed a gun at her head and forced her. It was her choice. Sure the way he broke up with her was really stupid, and he should have done it way before the wedding day, and not on a post-it note (ask Carrie!). But I don’t see why it’s his fault that she chose to move away from her well-paid job. She can make her own choices.
She isn’t that smart-wait till you are married before you move. I am a disabled person who was physically and mentally abused at a hospital by a staff member as other staff looked on. Last offer is under a third of what she got. The legal system makes me sick.
My God Sandra, I am sorry to hear what happened to you. Was that staffer fired?
Who gets engaged w/o first discussing personal debt and other very important topics like family, religion, sex etc? No wonnder the divorce rate is so high.
Daisy- thank you so much for your kind words! Yes, he was fired. Again, thank you! 🙂
This is why when my boyfriend and I bought a house, we did so only after we planned out how property would be divided and/or what would be done in the event of a breakup. Notice that we did this without specifying circumstances surrounding a breakup, just a breakup. So if he cheated on me or I on him and we broke up, the scorned partner could not, in a fit of anger, try to screw the other person by forcing the sale of the property just out of spite or something similar. When financial matters are combined with close personal ties, things can get messy, so we chose to keep the two things separate by planning for a worst-case scenario. More people should consider the “non-marital pre-nup”. You can have lawyers draft legal documents outside of marriage, for things like this.
I think the time has come for people, especially women, to learn to look at things like this with more objectivity and plan accordingly. If you look at financial issues more like you are a partner in a business and less like you are a partner in a relationship, you will get a good idea of whether or not you are going out on a too-thin limb.
Okay this is one crazy story and what is up with people in Georgia? Anyone remember Jennifer Wilbanks who “ran away” from her wedding? She also sued her fiance for “punitiva damages” and he countersued for “emotional damages.”
Whatever happened to “Hey, I don’t wanna get married. Sorry. Have a nice life.”
I say that RoseMary Shell is just sour she got dumped, and in not a nice way.
No one should ever take an engagement or wedding for granted. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions and quit blaming other people for problems that may very well have been your fault.
I agree with a couple posters this is only going to add problems to relationships and we’ll see pre-pre-nups.
Takes the whole romance out of things, yeah.
Ummm… People lose money ALL THE TIME because of bad decisions that they make! It was HER decision! What is wrong with you people?! He didn’t FORCE her to quit her job. SHE QUIT HER JOB! It was HER decision. It was obviously a STUPID decision in retrospect and now she has to pay the price! That’s how life works! You don’t just go around suing everyone for you problems. Unreal. Completely unreal.
An engagement is NOT A LEGAL CONTACT!!!!!! Jezz.
ContrACt, conTRACT, Joyce bella, yes I do totally agree with you – calme toi, seriously – I don’t like this hatchet-faced woman and her approachon things either. I agree with you! The both of them are morons, the skunk of a cowardly fiancee and her for being such a moron, putting all her life in the promise of a contractually binding furute with a man who clearly saw something he freaked out about in her in the nick of time – or so he thought.
I think there’s something very disturbing about this court ruling. Stinks of – of wrongness, just – wrongness. And I don’t like that bitter-looking old woman’s face. I have no sympathy nor bonhomie toward her at all. She looks like a thin-lipped succubus.
Sue…Smile!
There are a lot of misguided folks here: anyone who says there wasn’t a contract here, anyone who says the result is “unfair,” and anyone who thinks this is new law.
First to the people who think this is some new, disturbing thing in the law, it’s not. This is an old, old common law rule called detrimental reliance. It’s the same as if you lived in New York and were offered a job in California. In RELIANCE on the job offer in California, you sold your house in New York, moved 3,000 miles, and bought a new house in California. You don’t have a contract to work in California (employment in the U.S. is at-will), but because the California folks induced you to move there and your reliance and actions based on that inducement were INTENDED and FORESEEABLE, the California employer will be liable to you for the damages (i.e. money you spent) in relying on their promise to your detriment.
Second, to anyone who thinks this is “unfair,” ask yourself whether it’s fair to make a promise to someone who you know will rely on it to their detriment and then be able to revoke that promise with impunity. Would it be fair to a star athlete, if a college told him that if he went there he’d get a full scholarship, no strings attached, for all four years, but then in his second year, they stopped paying on his scholarship? What if he also turned down similar offers from other schools? Should the school just be allowed to not pay anymore because it changed its mind?
And to those who think there wasn’t a contract here, you’re right! But that’s irrelevant! This is a 500 year old concept called “quasi-contract.” It’s meant to address this very situation — where person one induces person two to do something detrimental to person two in order to confer a benefit on person one! Once person two has relied on the promise and taken the detrimental action, person one has to pay for that detriment if he doesn’t live up to his promise. Here the woman left an $80,000 a year job and moved to another state where she worked at $30,000 a year job. She gave up at least $50,000 PER YEAR and MOVED to a new state.
Matt,
I followed you up until the end. I bet the appeals court reverses due to public policy. Awarding damages based on quasi-contract in this situation only encourages people to enter into marriages against their will. If this isn’t overturned, then they’ll be a law enacted to prevent such awards ASAP. Nice try, though.
I have a feeling Matt does not like sports and is a fan of wine spritzers.
“where person one induces person two to do something detrimental to person two in order to confer a benefit on person one!”
Matt–this could be seen two ways. One in the way you explained it, the other:
Person one (woman) induces person two (man) to do something detrimental (get married) to person two in order to confer a benefit (woman wants to be married) on person one.
this man DID NOT want to marry her for whatever reason–his choices were to get married anyway, or leave.
Also in the video this woman admits she had debt, how was she planning on paying it off if she took such a pay cut in jobs? She should have insisted he move if she could not find a comprable paying job. Her decision, her problem!
$150,000 will buy a lot of vibrators, because lawd knows, she’s going to need them.
How about this, we will just stop marrying you money hungry whores! Whether its alimony, child support, law suits because we decided not to marry you because you couldn’t stop shoving food in your mouth and got fat, you bitches think that we are nothing but walking wallets and our money belongs to you. From now on you are nothing but walking vaginas and that’s all I want from you. I will never marry any of you whores.
Well now Chris, whoa down there.
I put my present husband through his last 2 years of college working 3 jobs while supporting my 3 oldest children from my first marriage because my peach of an exhusband ignored his wage assignment.
BTW, that’s Mrs. Whore to you. 8)
Chris, you sound like a woman hater. Nobody would want to marry you anyway, so don’t worry about it.
And I must say, I’ve known tons of women who worked and sacrificed to put their husbands through college, medical school, law school, or MBA school.
Shove food in our faces and got fat? LOL. That’s good. What about you guys and your post-35 beer guts? Should we divorce you then? Nice. 🙂
For the record, I take care of myself to the best of my ability and the husband has no complaints. I supported him through two years of education when my job was the greater salary. He now supports me so I can raise our kid at home. We don’t keep score. We’re partners.
As for this engagement situation…no one is saying he should’ve married her. They’re saying that the time to break off an engagement is prior to 3 days before the event. Money situations should have been discussed and dealt with before the week prior to the wedding. He should’ve expressed his financial concerns prior to her leaving her job and home town. Had he been a man, come to her and said, “This isn’t going to work,” in time to save her the monetary losses she incurred, things might have been different. If you’re going to break off an engagement, there are ways and times to do it that will honor your responsibility to the person you claimed to love enough to spend forever with. Waiting till the last minute after debt has been piled up and public humiliation is inevitable…is weak and pathetic and immature.
A MAN doesn’t leave a woman with thousands of dollars in wedding debt, homeless, and unemployed, and separated from her home town and family support system.
MEN…don’t do that.
He’s an ass becuase he didn’t have the guts to tell her straight. However, she is pathetic for suing. So what if the guys decided he didn’t want to marry you after all. Get a life and move on. If you think money will make you feel bettter then you are really stupid. How could you leave one job without first having another job even if you were following a man. By the way ladies, we should never move or follow a man unless you already have said your I Do’s.
This is bad policy. Those two people should not be married. Nobody should be forced to go through with a marriage simply to avoid a lawsuit. It’s just bad public policy.
this woman is really mad why would anyone want to keep an engagment ring when the guy broke it off shes a liar if she really loved him she would of been honest with him from the start when ur in a commited realtionship u shouldnt ever lie to ur partner i m not surprised he broke it off she should of told the truth what a golddigger he buyed her that ring and she wants to sell it dumb woman
This is unbelievable. I am male and was engaged to a girl. This girl took our house, the money I put into the house, and left me sleeping in my car for a few days until I could get another place. She split up with me so she could meet guys on Myspace.
There is no doubt she is pathetic and I am lucky that she is out of my life. I should be able to sue her, and everyone else should be able to sue everytime they are “misstreated”.
This is a rediculous ruling. People get hurt in relationships. The relationships need to end and not be drug into court.
Boo to the courts for this one.