Posted on 12/07/2013 8:27:47 AM PST by Innovative
A Georgia appeals court has upheld an earlier ruling ordering a state resident to pay $50,000 to his one-time fiancé for breaking his promise to marry her.
Courthouse News Service (CNS) reports Melissa Cooper sued Christopher Ned Kelley for fraud and breach of promise after their rocky, 10-year relationship ended in 2011.
The couple reportedly had lived together since 2000 and had a child.
A trial court reportedly awarded Cooper damages and attorneys’ fees worth $50,000, and now the Georgia Court of Appeals is affirming that order by ruling, "Cooper testified that she was devastated by Kelley's fraud and breach of promise to marry and that she quit her job to raise the couple's children in reliance on the promise."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
10 years in many places constitutes a common law marriage and they had one child together as well.
I'm sure a child support hearing is coming next as it should be.
> $50k and out? I know several divorced men who would take that deal in a heartbeat! I their cases, wifey got bored, got a good (female) lawyer, and basically put them on life-support in order to suck every dime they could from them they could. Whenever they fall a little “short for the kids”, they ring up the attorney and ask to sue for more child support. It’s unbelievable to watch...
Reminds me of the time my ex-wife tried to raise my child support because she was trying to repay her college loans. My son was the one that tipped me off. He was turning 18 at the time and it was about to stop but she thought it would stay in force for another 4 years., longe enough to pay off her loans. BTW my income had not gone up. Some people are just despicable in nature.
An old breach of promise suit. California outlawed such suits circa 1936. In a technical sense a promise to marry coupled with an acceptance supported by consideration is a contract. I once met a lawyer who started practicing in 1918 he said such suits were their bread and butter. Lots of fraud killed them through legislative action.
In this case I would say the court is correct. This isn't a simple case of breach of promise as the headline implies, it is a case of a couple living together and planning a life together, plus she now has a child by this guy and he should take care of his kid, regardless of how he came by it. $50,000 sounds kind of tame compared to what the could be paying out in child support payments.
NC still has alienation of affection laws.
no they are not.
part of the issue here is did he contractually make a promise to marry this woman (I am disregarding the fact they have a child together and were living as man and wife…. those are different issues). Even a hundred years ago this would have gotten you sued. We used to be a society where a man’s word and a woman’s virtue meant something. I realize that is no longer the rule. But on a purely contractual basis this woman had every right to sue and prevail
Moral here is men be honorable and women qut settling for just anything
She assumed the risk when she had a child and they weren’t married. I think they are both morons and feel sorry for the child.
and this law suit had NOTHING to do with child support….hence your request is denied
ah see there is a take on it that I hadn’t thought of ;)
and thankfully Georgia is not California….
But then California does have the Belli rule doesn’t it??? oral promises to take care of you forever that ended up with Marvin having to pay support to his non-wife
This wouldn’t have happened in Virginia where cohabitation is illegal. The woman would not have had grounds to sue.
“The $50k for breach of promise is ridiculous (IMO). But he should be paying child support until that kid is an adult.”
Exactly. Even some posters seem to be confusing things — she certainly should NOT be getting anything “for breech of promise”, but he is certainly responsible for child support.
But her suit and the judge’s ruling is specifically ONLY about breech of promise.
It was Lee Marvin who was ordered to pay.
Quite true. However, I invite you to go back and read post #7 to which I responded wherein Freeper Twotone commented that he should be required to pay child support. It is that sentence to which I responded. Nice try though.
Just another sign of why the country is going down fast. This woman has one kid from the most recent shack-up and another from a “prior relationship.” All she had from this guy was a ring, probably purchased so she could call him her fiancé when they went to grandma’s for dinner. Meanwhile, both kids are out a dad. Evil. Pure evil.
“I think it would be closer to reality to claim that people are out of control.”
Who is the controller?
So being stupid is now being rewarded in courts.
The whole point of a wedding is to set a delineation between “not mutually responsible” and “mutually responsible”.
Some folks are just so lucky to be living in Georgia where they can buy a used car from Ned Kelly.
My brother had to pay child support for his kids to his ex and he made the last payment to the penny. Because their birthdays were in the middle of the month! Lol
She was not happy. Lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.