Jilted bride sues ex-groom

by Walter Olson on January 12, 2011

Should the damages be confined to the unrecoverable costs of the planned wedding, or extend beyond that? [Today Show]

{ 14 comments }

1 Ted Frank 01.12.11 at 10:08 am

The groom countersued over the $45,000 engagement ring. Someone’s going to get rich by signing these two up for a two-day series of one-hour reality specials where the TV audience votes on who wins.

2 Chris 01.12.11 at 10:36 am

In my state, these types of suits are specifically barred by statute.

3 Ed 01.12.11 at 12:41 pm

The lesson here?
Never marry a lawyer?
No….
Never marry a vindictive, overspending, witch of a lawyer.

4 Leafs 01.12.11 at 12:54 pm

At that price, maybe it would have been cheaper to go through with the wedding then divorce after a few weeks. Probably not as I’m sure the vindictiveness level would still be high…

5 Malcolm Smith 01.13.11 at 12:07 am

Why, in the name of heaven, do people go in for such extragantly expensive weddings in the first place? And if they do, don’t the couple sit down beforehand to discuss the cost, bearing in mind that it is going to come out of their joint finances?
If they do, however, I suppose someone would have to pay if the engagement was broken. What about the tradition that the bride’s parents pay for the wedding? In such a circumstance, surely they would have a better right to sue.

6 Frank 01.13.11 at 9:47 am

It strikes me as funny that whereever I read comments, as here, the lead cry is about the cost of the wedding.

I am surprised that to so many a mere $100K seems grossly extravagant for a wedding.

(I am not really surprised at the level of animosity extended to the bride, as if she was dropped almost literally at the altar because of her spending and such an action by the putative groom was reasonable and non-compensable.)

7 John Burgess 01.13.11 at 10:43 am

@Malcolm Smith: Traditionally, the price of the wedding is paid by the bride’s family. That means there’s no incentive–other than what Mom & Dad provide–to tone things down.

I do know parents who have paid their daughters $10K or more to elope in order to avoid the expense of full-blown, every-girl’s-dream weddings.

8 CTrees 01.13.11 at 2:05 pm

This was an episode of Boston Legal. First season, and I’m pretty sure there was a bet involved (based on if Alan Shore could win the case).

Actually, in that case, the bride was left at the altar, rather than being dumped shortly before the wedding, so the fictional bride probably would’ve had a slightly better distress claim.

9 Leafs 01.13.11 at 2:22 pm

http://www.suntimes.com/news/3211207-418/salerno-wedding-bride-suit-buttitta.html

This is going to get ugly as the runaway groom lets he reveals his allegations why he ran like hell. I think Ted’s idea for a reality show featuring these two is spot on.

10 Richard Nieporent 01.13.11 at 4:37 pm

This looks like a case for Judge Judy!

11 Jay Markowitz 01.13.11 at 10:54 pm

Looks like another case of putting all your energy into the wedding but nothing into the marriage itself.

This would have put a different spin on movies such as ‘Runaway Bride.

12 Brian G. 01.15.11 at 9:47 pm

I’d be willing to bet he got scared off by her Bridezilla impression. She sounds incredibly high maintenance.

13 Bill Poser 01.19.11 at 11:55 pm

Wouldn’t it be wise to include the handling of the wedding expenses in the marriage contract, and to require a marriage contract as a condition of a marriage license?

14 Ted Frank 01.20.11 at 8:06 am

Bill: if litigation over wedding expenses occurs X% of the time, and the cost of negotiating and drafting a wedding contract is Y% of the wedding expenses, then it wouldn’t be wise if Y > X, as it probably is. The reason this story is news is because such lawsuits are extraordinarily rare; very few relationships break up in the month or two before the wedding, and very few of those break up so raucously that the parties can’t come to an agreement or understanding on the handling of the wedding costs.

Comments on this entry are closed.