WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
On the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, John Piper writes about the Reformer's impact on America. 
Love me, leave me, pay me
When a Georgia woman’s fiancé abruptly called off their engagement, she did something equally unexpected: She sued him.
According to jilted bride RoseMary Shell, she left a high-paying job in Florida and moved to Georgia to marry Wayne Gibbs–but then he dumped her. Arguing that she has suffered financially and emotionally since Gibbs walked out on her, Shell said her fiancé’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. The jury agreed and ordered Gibbs to pay Shell $150,000.
“People shouldn’t be allowed to do that and hopefully he’ll think twice before he does it to someone else,” said Shell.
While Shell’s lawyer insists this matter is not about a woman scorned but rather a case of a broken contract, reaction to the jury’s ruling is mixed. What do you think about it?
back to top68 Comments to “Love me, leave me, pay me”
interesting, from my perspective, that happened after twenty years of marriage (by legal definition) and I was left with next to nothing and four children to raise, guess that high pay came in handy
Report comment to moderator
I had two thoughts: 1) no wonder he dumped her and 2) he got off cheap
Report comment to moderator
If it were just a matter of him changing his mind about an engagement, I’d say she should heal and move on. But if she really did lose significant income-earning potential by moving to be with him–and I gather she was able to demonstrate that since she won the case–then I think maybe she is entitled to some recompense.
Just out of a sense of decency, you should not convince someone to make significant and costly life changes for your sake unless you’re absolutely sure you’re going to hold up your end of the deal.
Report comment to moderator
My wife just read the article with me. Her comment was: “The guy got off easy. Jerk!”
As to my view on this. I personally feel that had the two of them been introduced in the local church and the relationship cultivated in the local church along with premarital counseling, this whole nasty affair could have been avoided.
Report comment to moderator
4-
pre-marital counseling…what goes on there? How long does it take? What church has a successful track record with this approach?
Report comment to moderator
Couple of thoughts: while I am willing to grant that an engagement proposal amounts to a verbal contract at the very least (particularly if a ring is given…); I question whether the woman truly has legal standing. It seems to me that women would have to have demonstrated that leaving Florida prior to the wedding was required by the engagement proposal and that the man had no compelling reasons to end the engagement. Basically the sticky part is this: yes the engagement proposal is a contract BUT no conditions are ever explicitly defined; hence I’m not sure that the courts can legitimately step in and declare one party financially responsible to the other party.
Now, whether the guy was wrong/jerk/etc or the woman was wrong/jerk/etc I don’t know, nor do I really care. I just think that this case is problematic for two reasons: one, it abuses the court system and forces the court to make a judgment when there is no compelling reason for the courts to be involved; two, it gives additional weight to the general thrust of our society to handle all relational disputes through our court system.
Report comment to moderator
Also — just random additional thought: 75% of the poll respondents to the story did not agree (”Absolutely Not!”) with the jury’s decision.
Report comment to moderator
the church…everyone’s dream come true, the incubator of good
Report comment to moderator
#5, I think there is a significant difference between marriages that end in their infancy (first couple of years) and marriages that end after a protracted period of time. In the former, the situtation could often have been avoided through pre-marital counseling (either by convincing the “couple to be” not to marry, or helping them work through problems/potential problems in their relationship). Does pre-marital counseling help for the problem that come down the line? Not sure, but in the latter case additional counseling is often effective.
No — there is no guarantee that pre-marital counseling will prevent divorce/separation/etc at any stage of the marriage process; but there is strong indication that counseling pre/post marriage can provide the resources and environment to allow disputes to be resolved in ways that heal/reconcile the marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Joe B. at #4: I personally feel that had the two of them been introduced in the local church and the relationship cultivated in the local church along with premarital counseling, this whole nasty affair could have been avoided.
I personally feel that you are deluded.
Based on my own experience (back when I was a churchgoer, my own brief marriage fit this description … nobody got left at the altar, but given how bad and short the marriage was, we would have been better off if we had) meeting at church and getting pre-marital pastoral counseling is no predictor of success.
I’ve seen enough other couples go through that process to know that their chances of marital happiness are about as good as everybody elses … and no better.
Report comment to moderator
He left her a note in *their* bathroom. So she moved in before the wedding. They were living together.
One more reason to wait until marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Well, SteveG, you are certainly entitled to you opinions. Opinions are like noses. Everyone has one.
But as I recall, when personal attacks are directed at individuals by using such terminology by calling me “deluded” only goes so far. That type of vitriolic behavior will only further alienate you from the mainstream of American Society.
Report comment to moderator
Well, she has “standing” because she is the person who was engaged to the guy. She’s one of the parties to the “contract.” All standing means is that someone has the right to bring the case. None of us could have sued him.
From her picture alone, I suspect that the jury felt sorry for a middle-aged woman who had moved from one state and given up a good job. I suspect it was argued that Gibbs led her to believe that he would be assuming her debt and that she relied on this and moved because he had already paid some to the extent of $30,000. We don’t have much of a record to go on from this article, just the bare bones. The jury must have found that the woman had changed her life to such an extent that she had relied on Gibbs’ promises to her detriment. They seem to have wanted to make her “whole.” We don’t know what he actually said to her about paying her debt. Nor do we know why he was willing to pay $30,000 of it, and why he didn’t know the extent of her debt. We don’t know how she might have tried to mitigate her damages, i.e., maybe she tried and couldn’t get her old job back.
I think Gibbs will appeal.
Report comment to moderator
Now that I’ve read SteveG’s “confession,” a lot of things are explained.
This case actually argues for pre-marital counseling. It tells people to KNOW, really know the person before you move in, pay debts, etc. To some extent, Gibbs did this to himself. (Not that I don’t feel sorry for him a bit.)
Report comment to moderator
In a totally insane world wherein every human being has an absolute right NEVER to face any accountability or consequences for any decision that THEY MAKE that involves emotional or financial risk on the front end, she should win the case. But since this is a totally insane world scenario, let me continue. He should pay all her debts and she should eat bon bons and watch soap operas for the reast of her life. He should have to pay her top salary for the rest of his life and be sent to prison for 20 years so he cannot make any money to pay her salary. And the jury can feel self-assured that they really put it to a jerk (which is what the justice system is for, right?).
In a sane world inhabited by human beings with brains, she should be told to take responsibility for her relationship decisions and learn from the mistake. And she should be told to stop shacking up with men (assuming the “their bathroom” line indicates they already lived together).
Report comment to moderator
#13 — granted, she had “standing” b/c she was party to the contract (here I demonstrate my lack of legal terminology) — I guess what I meant by “standing” was whether she truly had a legitimate case. Just because you are a party of a contract and the contract is ended, doesn’t mean you have a legitimate case to bring before the courts. I think that unless she can demonstrate that “leaving her job and moving to GA prior to the wedding” was a necessary condition of the engagement proposal (contract) then I’m not sure the judge should have let the case proceed.
And I definately think the jury overstepped their bounds as well: they have simply encouraged this idea within American society that the legal system can solve all your problems.
Report comment to moderator
Absurd. If they’re legally responsible for each other the moment he proposes, what the heck is the purpose of getting married?? The second they say “I do”, they’ve made a public VOW and the public should hold them accountable for breaking it. Up until that moment, both parties are completely free to drop out without fault.
This is just another way that American society is spiralling down into the pit of “feel-good” justice. If it makes somebody upset, it’s wrong. If not, it’s Okay.
Report comment to moderator
Robert M, to go forward, there has to be a genuine issue of material fact. So, if the judge got a motion to dismiss, all she had to demonstrate was that her “facts” were different in a material way, in a way that had some validity, for the judge to say let the jury decide. The jury evidently found she had relied to her detriment on Gibbs’ promises.
We really don’t know all the facts here. This article is written to make us feel sorry for Gibbs, but we don’t really know what Gibbs promised her. He probably isn’t as “innocent” as he appears. We don’t really know what he knew of her financial situation or when he knew it. There is something fishy about leaving a note in the bathroom. Some of you might feel differently if you had more facts.
Report comment to moderator
18-
The some who are thinking, and able to ask questions, are the ones who would benefit from mroe facts
Report comment to moderator
Notice the article didn’t say if she gave back the ring . . .
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, he paid off her debts to the tune of $30,000. Instead of gratitude, he got slammed with a lawsuit and $150,000.00 bill for her emotional pain and whatever else made the jury cry.
If he was otherwise a jerk in some way, that should not be a matter for our justice system (in a sane world, that is).
The article said, “She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs…”
“She left…” Sounds like she made the decision, and she made it before they were married. In a sane world, MARRIAGE is the contract! She took a chance on a better life. I can admire that because she put some risk on the line (or did she?). I wish she had found it. But it takes two and one backed out before taking wedding vows. Jerk? Maybe. But life is not fair. She made a decision and learned a lesson.
The article said, “He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding…”
THAT after taking her on trips and paying off #30,000 of her debt! If the jury regarded their engagement as a financial contract, should he have known about the full extent of her debts?
It’s total nonsense. The jerks may be in the jury.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, my only comment on this situation is to recall Zha Zha’s famous quote:
“I’ve never hated a man enough to return his diamonds.”
Report comment to moderator
22-
way to go, infj
Report comment to moderator
but then, if that is all your are left with financially, is jewelry, you might need it
Report comment to moderator
Wait! Hold everything. You mean, unmarried people in this country are breaking off engagementts? We definitely need more lawyers to put a stop to that!
________
Seriously, lawyers on this thread can correct me about the legalities of contract law, but it is still total horse-radish to consider it a deal before each one says, “I do.”
Report comment to moderator
24-
sorry, you WILL need to diamonds to trade for money to buy food
I was stupid enough to sell off my 1.5 carot ring to pay for husband’s foolish debt, that is how submissive I was, so by the time the divorce came, years, later, not only was the diamond gone, but all the children’s (grandparents’) college account money (illegally spent) the equity in our home, comletely gone, 401K, everything was gone, his constant mantra “we don’t have any money” (for me, but not for him)
was more true than ever
Report comment to moderator
Hey, maybe Gibbs can find himself another woman, get engaged, and have her pay off $30,000.00 of his debt and then let her find out that he still owes $120,000. Then if she backs off, he can sue her and suddenly be debt free. This way, lawyers get to make lots of money and more Americans will be scared to death of getting engaged.
Wait, there is a chance that he might have to deal with a jury that includes someone with a brain. O well.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, this is about “reliance.”
If Gibbs had been my client and he told me he was about to pay off $30,000 in debt, I would have told him he was 1) crazy, and 2) to look her financial situation futher. It was stupid to do that. We also don’t know the benefits that Gibbs received, and you can read into that whatever you please. We really need more facts here. We don’t know what really happened.
In a society that advocates living together prior to marriage, let this be a lesson. This really isn’t all that different than palimony.
Report comment to moderator
24,26-
BTW, that foolish spending husband didn’t manage his finances well enough to purchase me a 1.5 carot ring; his father did it. The dad bought all five children (at the time of birth) a ring of that size or greater, so no manchild had to be burdened with that part of the relationship with a mate, and the womanchild could wear their dad’s ring, instead of their husband’s ring, which was of course, inferior.
Report comment to moderator
In an ideal world people would take marriage and their engagement much more seriously and thoughtfully.
By contrast, this couple evidently didn’t know each other that well, shacked up, and had debt before the marriage ceremony even commenced.
Tell me how that’s a good thing any way you cut it? Sounds as if there’s blame enough for both sides to share, and both of these people should grow up and learn from their stupidity.
Report comment to moderator
Breach of contract. NJL can correct me but common law has a broad definition of contract — essentially an implied promise is enough. If you convince a girl to move to an other state and quit her job, you have an obligation.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, otherwise, words are meaningless, goood…thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Hell hath no fury like a woman who has been scorned.
Report comment to moderator
#33-
what is scorned?
Being left penniless, that is hell
Report comment to moderator
HRW, the promise may have been more than implied. They probably talked and she ended up moving, quitting her job, he paid $30,000 debt. They BOTH acted. This was a two-way street. I think the problem we have is that the article is short, it’s written to make her look like a golddigger because she sued, but we don’t have the full record/transcript before us. There had to be something definitive for the jury to rule in her favor. They must have found that she relied to her detriment on promises made. From the size of the award, it appears to me that they awarded what her pay would have been, her moving expenses, that sort of thing. It doesn’t appear that the jury felt she committed a fraud on him. He can appeal to have it overturned or reduced.
Don’t make promises you don’t intend to keep, especially in matters of the heart. Maybe if this happened a lot more, people would think twice about how they enter relationships.
Report comment to moderator
#33 Nick
Correct you are, but since she is new to the area, she may not know that in Florida you have anyone killed for $50 and get change back from any Jamaican. People are losing their homes left and right in forclosures after losing their jobs and they will do anyhthing to get a little cash for some drugs.
One must remember that even though she won a judgement, it doesn’t mean she will ever get a dime. It is up to her to collect it. She might garnish his wages if he has a job but, his home is off limits in Florida as are his retirement accounts, Annuities etc.
She doesn’t have anuything to be happy about at this point and her pound of flesh is still far from her.
#34 REG,
Yep, Scorned and Penniless will her in trouble faster than being either. Now Scorned, penniless and stoned is the Florida Trifecta.
Report comment to moderator
36-
I was trying to make a distinction between being scorned and actually being penniless, like I have been
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
How awful. Shame on him. Are you and the children doing okay now?
Report comment to moderator
I was married this month to a wonderful man. We are starting a new life. My children will beneift.
Report comment to moderator
Was the jury all women? (Jury of her peers…?)
You can’t sue someone for breach of contract before there is a contract. Marriage is the contract. Engagement is a promise – verbal, and not to be broken but for good reason. Still it is not legally binding.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Congratulations. Now, it seems to me, you need to lose the bitterness (and multiple posts) about your first husband. Trust me, the bitterness will kill this marriage, and must be left in the past.
Report comment to moderator
trust your experiential knowledge which you acquired first-hand?
Report comment to moderator
10
i used to pick up a lot of chicks at church. they are usually rather naughty…
Report comment to moderator
43-
yes, generalities are not helpful, it depends on the acutal situation
Report comment to moderator
I’m a little surprised that Christians seem to be unanimously agreed that, prior to the marriage vows, nothing is binding. I know we live in a different culture than the Biblical one, so we don’t have an exact correlation, but we do see in Scripture that in Hebrew culture an engagement (betrothal) was legally and morally binding. And if this couple was already living together, based on Biblical principles, this would seem to add additional weight to the moral obligation of the man to the woman.
I’m not sure how, or even if, these principles should or could be applied to a contemporary American engaged couple, but I don’t think they should just be ignored in a Christian assessment of the situation.
Report comment to moderator
John, there are oral contracts, there are implied contracts, there are written contracts. An engagement can be considered a contract in and of itself.
Actually, Reg, I thought the same thing CherylD thought. You’re still burning over what happened with No. 1.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – 39
I hope you will be very happy in your new marriage.
I would offer you this unsolicited advice, – stop commenting on your past marriage and all the pain it caused you, it will only poison what you now have. Your bitterness of the past will eat away at your new life with this man if you continue to bring it up. Even talking about your past marriage to others isn’t healthy, let it go, move on, enjoy what you have.
Report comment to moderator
Reg, yes, firsthand knowledge. Not marriage, but intimate acquaintance with several women who have made everyone close to them miserable because of their bitterness. But also, read what Proverbs says (repeatedly) about a man being better off sleeping on the roof than living in the house with a bitter and contentious woman. And the passage about not letting the sun go down on our anger.
If you do not forgive and move on, you will kill this marriage. You won’t hurt me by your bitterness, but you will continue to hurt everyone around you. In other words, don’t listen to me (or God) if you don’t want to; it’s your funeral, not mine. But if you’re wise, you’ll pay attention now, before it’s too late.
Report comment to moderator
When the topic relates to the past 25 years of my life, I will share what I have observed and learned, God is the one who taught me what I learned and there are those who do beneift from my posts. If anyone does not need to hear what I share, then skip on to the next post. That is what I do when I am not interested in what is posted, I skip to the next post. It is called courtesy.
Report comment to moderator
REE writes in #45,
“I’m a little surprised that Christians seem to be unanimously agreed that, prior to the marriage vows, nothing is binding.”
Please note my post in #30:
“In an ideal world people would take marriage and their engagement much more seriously and thoughtfully.”
What I had in mind when I wrote this was that betrothal was (apparently) a binding legal agreement in New Testament times. Otherwise why would Joseph need to quietly divorce his fiance?
No. Not exactly unanimous. I think that an engagement should not be lightly entered into either. In our present culture however, not only is engagement not a legal thing, it can be entered into with hardly a serious thought….
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man. Under the Jewish culture, the period we would call the engagement, the couple were considered married but the consummation of the Marriage would not be fulfilled until the day of the wedding. This period was for two reasons. (1) To allow the Bridegroom time to prepare the home for his Bride. (2). The Bride was to prepare herself and patiently wait for the Bridegroom to come for her. Both parties were expected to keep themselves pure.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – 49
I would disagree with you. For instance, I had no idea you had re-married, one reason is, you still complain about your ex-husband. Bringing up the past and talking about how bad it was won’t help anyone Reg, its getting the garbage out of the dumpster and giving it full coverage once again. Every time you do this, the stench becomes more pungent, and lingers only to remind yourself and others of your past pain.
One can speak about divorce without bringing up their own background and bitterness. You might not recognize how bitter it sounds, or maybe you haven’t come to terms with it, if you haven’t I would pray about it.
Again, I wish you all the happiness in your new marriage.
Report comment to moderator
MIM — A betrothal was a legal binding agreement because it was a financial contract between families. In many jurisdiction conjugal relations plus a joint legal financial transaction may make you married for legal purposes. From the description , I would surmise enough actions were taken by both parties to establish a state of contract. Beyond legal issues, you make a promise follow through or satisfy by other means.
Report comment to moderator
I would perhaps assert that the engagement period should be thought of as a spiritual and moral contract as well. One has promised, after all….
Like I said, I do think that engagement and marriage should be taken seriously and thoughtfully.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – On a previous thread, I wrote something along these lines – that relying on experience (one’s own or the stories of others) for learning is not necessarily accurate or trustworthy. We can color the truth of our own experiences with our preconceptions or our emotions.
We should filter everything we experience & hear through God’s word.
Your reply was “Zappo!” which I took to be a disagreement. Could you explain what it is with my statement that you disagree with?
Report comment to moderator
Reg – Here are 2 examples – After my dad died, my mother had some experiences where help “popped up” just when she needed it. Mom saw this as Dad helping her out, I saw it as God helping her out.
A lady used to come to our church for a few years. If you were to ask her, she would say that she was not accepted by us. However, that is not true. Several of us went out of our way to befriend her & make her feel welcomed. But she was a very insecure woman & could not accept that she was accepted. It was very sad.
Another thought – Wise Lady A’s advice was once rejected by another lady (Lady B) who said that since Lady A had not experienced what she, Lady B, had, she (A) didn’t know what she was talking about.
Lady A replied something like, “I haven’t gone through what you’re going through, but I know what the Bible teaches, & I know that Jesus is sufficient for every need.”
Report comment to moderator
#28, NJL wrote; “If Gibbs had been my client and he told me he was about to pay off $30,000 in debt, I would have told him he was 1) crazy, and 2) to look her financial situation futher.”
I have not ruled out that he may have been crazy. I stand by the conviction that the jury was looped beyond the moon.
They shacked up, broke up, and now he’s broke and she’s rich (assuming the ruling stands). They BOTH should take responsibility for their decisions and feelings. Her stupidity should have been just as expensive as his!
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “If you convince a girl to move to an other state and quit her job, you have an obligation.”
Too vague. What is in question is what the oblication is. Is he obligated legally or morally? Is he obligated to go into debt himself? Or pay her $150,000.00? Is he obligated to marry her even if he has truly decided she is not the right one? Or is he obligated to have surgery so he will never be allowed to live with a woman and do this to her again? Is he obligated to pay all her debts? His he obligated to apologize? What are her responsibilities?
Report comment to moderator
45, REE wrote; “I’m a little surprised that Christians seem to be unanimously agreed that, prior to the marriage vows, nothing is binding.”
That’s a false reading of what has been said. I question that this should have been “legally” binding and I question that he was the only one seriously at fault. She should take more respeonsibility for her decisions and her feelings. And Wedding vows should be the line, before God the law, friends and family.
We don’t know that these were Christians, but had they been, they might have had a clearer vision for that sacred line!
I even agree with you, REE, that living together should increase some moral obligations, but what does morality have to do with shacking up in the first place? Women who do that should know the risks and (often) stupidity involved, and not go crying to a jury when it blows up in her face.
Report comment to moderator
Breach of Promise is a very old cause of action – many hundreds of years – in English common law (which we continued on with when the US split from England).
There are fairly well established rules for determining damages. This case is no more pioneering than a slip and fall case.
She apparently made a sufficient showing under the well established rules for these types of cases that the jury found for her. If they misappied the rules, and he appeals, it will be reversed or the damages reduced.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re not married, but live as if you are and start to weave your lives together financially, etc., then her suit/award makes sense—especially in our increasingly litigious society.
It seems though that the wiser path would be to forgo the fleshly benefits of marriage until you’re absolutely certain you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, have a rock solid prenupt and actually are married. Funny that it was ever just about love, huh?
In deference to NJL’s seeming professionalism, the way we’re headed I could see Ambulance Chaser suits eventually being brought for fouling someone’s air with bad breath and causing global warming. Lawyers gotta eat too and since were up to the back pockets in them, along with enough new legislation enacted annually to keep millions of them busy, where’s the surprise. Heck, we’ve already got a major political party continuing to drum up work for them as we glyph.
If the above prediction/direction of where we’re headed pans out, wisdom would avoid other people entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
While in completely different circumstances, I DO understand bitterness. I am still bitter over something that happened over 6 years ago now. However, I recognize the problem, and I have been asking the Lord to help me deal with it, and He has. Slowly but surely the bitterness is going away.
It NEEDS to go away. The ladies are right. Every post you make shows a depth of bitterness that would be hard to miss even by someone with no empathy at all. You must pray to let this go. It will infect your life, your children’s lives, your new spouse’s life…everything about you and everything you touch.
You must be able to reach a point where you forgive your ex. I know. It sounds impossible. And it is without God.
Nothing is impossible with God.
But, the first step is admitting there is a problem and desiring for God to help you deal with it.
I know. I really do, although in a different way. But, the posters above are right. They are reaching out to you with God’s hand behind them.
Report comment to moderator
Cheese and crackers, what a tough crowd! What KRM said — this has been going on for centuries and all of a sudden you’re upset! (You know, the common law has followed the biblical idea that once you promise, you’re committed.)
There are statutes about this sort of thing — heart balm statutes — and they’re as old as the hills.
Report comment to moderator
I just saw on the news that this lady will be on GMA tomorrow morning.
Report comment to moderator
Did the jury really find that the man’s promise constituted an enforceable contract? It seems that consideration could be lacking. Moreover, if it were an enforceable contract, she could ask a court to make him specifically perform on the contract.
It seems more like a case of promissory estoppel.
Report comment to moderator
I saw the GMA story this morning. She did sue for breach of promise. Some states still have those old statutes. She claimed she gave up an $80,000/yr job, lost her health insurance, gave up her home, and that he’d left her having to start from scratch to get those things back. Not only did she win the $150,000 to help her get back on her feet (and okay, I can understand the jury verdict), she is going back to court for PUNITIVE damages. (She had a woman lawyer.)
There was dissent amongst the jurors, too, as well as other lawyers who practice in this area.
We’ll see what happens. Kristin, since you found this article, can you keep us apprised about what happens in the “punitive” phase? (I don’t think she’ll prevail there.)
Report comment to moderator
How many cows or goats did he pay in the first place?
Report comment to moderator
Thank God for women lawyers. Thank God for women doctors, in my case. It was a Christian mother who was my doctor and talked straight with me as no male doctor had done in 20 years. Sometimes a woman is what is needed.
Report comment to moderator