Buying your lady an expensive ring for Christmas?

[LSN80]

Whatever you do, make sure your plans is to walk her down the aisle. If you don't, and the circumstances are wrong, it could wind up costing you a much larger amount. After more then a decade, a child, and a broken relationship with Melissa Cooper, Christopher King is finding that out, in the form of a one-time payment of more then $50,000.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...ne-time-fiance-50000-for-breaking-promise-to/
After half a decade together, the 2006 version of Melissa Cooper found herself undeniably reeling, find out that her boyfriend of half a decade, Christopher Kelly, was cheating on her. She gave him no ultimatums, she simply wished to depart the relationship. Kelly's response? This, according to Cooper:

"He got down on his knees and proposed to me. He apologized for cheating....and he made me promises. I had his child. I quit my job for him."

This statement was part of an affadavit provided by Cooper for the Georgia state trial court, one that showed Cooper suing(and winning) $70,000 in damages from Kelly, who contends that Cooper ended the relationship with her, leaving her in 2011 while the two were living together. At the time, he was involved in another relationship as well, with another woman for two years. The affadavit, uncontested by Kelly, instead showed that Cooper took issue with another part of the filing, and that was that he and Cooper were 'engaged', by legal definition, as a result of he giving her the ring. Said Kelly, on the 'arrangement' he believed the two had:

"It(the relationship) was 'basically' prostitution. I paid for things and she(Cooper) had sex with me. I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring. I never said the words ‘will you marry me’ to her.”

Regardless of whose version you read, one things remains true here. The two parted ways bitterly, and upon parting, Cooper sued Kelly for (1.)"fraud"and for (2)"breach of promise to marry.” The lawsuits were heard together, and revolved around the same concept. When Cooper agreed to stay with Kelly, have his baby, and live with him, Kelly promised, with the ring as his symbol, the following:

1. He would take Cooper and her son from another relationship into his home to live with him.
2. She would stay at home, raise both children, and Kelly would provide for the four of them.
3. They would marry someday, as symbolized by the $10,000 ring he gave her.

Part of Cooper's argument was that he threw her out. While none of these things were written down as a "relationship clause", and this wasn't a "Cohabititation Agreement"(in the vein of John Cena and Nikki Bella), the agreements were indicated in that she was on the lease, as were the names of her two sons, one of which is with Kelly. Further, she had agreed to stay home and raise the boys 'properly', while Kelly was the financial provider for the family.

Kelly's argument? The exact opposite, essentially. Except, with how I'm reading things, Cooper must have had magic lady parts, or the two must have been at it like rabbits, as Cooper argued that their relationship was 'transactional in every way, marriage had been 'discussed', but never 'agreed upon', and she lived there out of 'his kindness', and the fact that she had 'his child.'

Bless his heart. He's Richard Gere from Pretty Woman, and he's raising Julia Robert's children to boot! With no nanny!

I say that in jest, but my point here is actually clear: This is a pair of people you simply wish had never found one another, and had they wound up with others, you can't help but believe those relationships would have ended very similarly as well. Because while both may have viewed a ring as a symbol for different things, it was clear what neither of them saw it as.

A reason to stay faithful.

As they stood in court and ran down the character of the other over the course of a ten year relationship, both argued that the final reason the relationship was ending was the infidelity of the other. Because the only thing this pimp and his prostitute could agree on was that each was cheating with another. They had loved each other once, it's true, but for at least a month now, each was engaged to another, inside real relationships. Sadly in each's case, the current relationships both are in are their badges of honor, or, at least, the relationship the other is currently in that was the reason the original relationship ended.

"Sadly, even when we love someone, we make mistakes we can't take back."

was what Cooper attested when admitting her affair.

”I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring. “I never said the words ‘will you marry me’ to her.”

Was what Kelly told Judge Elizabeth Branch as justification and also admission he had cheated a second time.

"The object of such a promise is not illegal or against public policy. In Georgia, the legislature has specifically announced that 'marriage is encouraged by the law.'"

Was the order written by appeals court judge Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote, shortly before upholdind the verdict that paid Cooper over $50,000 and gave her the house.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. While the man is certainly scum and has quite a bit of growing up to do, as evidenced by the argument he presented that Cooper was essentially 'his prostitute', I'm equally disheartened to find out that Cooper was cheating at the same time, and still in the relationship she had "made a mistake in".

Is the fact that Cooper also cheated irrelevant to her receiving the money, or is it the very fact that should keep her from seeing a dime?

If Cooper had not cheated herself, is this an open-and-shut case(in her favor), or is it bothersome and a scary precedent to set by awarding her this much money? After all, haven't we all been cheated on, one point or another?

Shouldn't both be thankful they found out about the other before they entered into marriage, which ineffably would have caused far more headache?

I think I know my answer, but wouldn't mind some convincing here. All other thoughts are truly encouraged here.

 

[Mustang Sally]

"This testimony, when juxtaposed with Cooper's testimony about the proposal and her acceptance, can be construed as an admission that Kelley never intended to marry Cooper." Branch wrote.

I can just imagine what our parent's generation (and all generations before theirs) must think of relationships in the modern world. Courts today aren't really equipped to deal with all the lawsuits and property division decisions that exist .....because in the past, almost everyone got married. When marriages ended, courts knew how to divide property and navigate through the machinery of divorce. The lawmakers of the past didn't foresee a world in which people chose to cohabitate but not marry.....and, far worse, have children without the benefit of marriage. Yes, these things always existed, but they certainly weren't the "in" way of doing things, as they are today.

Now, you have these two rather repugnant people. They make children and promise to be faithful to each other......even as they both cheat. They spend 10 years together in a supposedly monogamous relationship......with options.

Honestly, I don't know whether Cooper's lawsuit should have succeeded, but this case is one that was bound to come up in today's legal proceedings. Essentially, what resulted was a division of property by the courts....as if the couple had been married.

The $10,000 ring seemed to be a point of contention in the case, yet I didn't read anything that determined who got to keep it. Kelly says he never proposed to her, but if the ring was an engagement ring.....in effect, he did. Engagement rings are different than other types of rings.....and are given in contemplation of marriage. Unlike other types of gifts, in which the recipient of the gift keeps the item even if things don't work out in the relationship, engagement rings are supposed to go back to the person who gave them if the marriage never takes place.

So, by rights, the engagement ring should go back to Kelly, since a marriage never resulted from the cohabitation. On the other hand, if the courts ruled this relationship was "like a marriage," Cooper should keep the ring. It's a sticky point and I wonder if the Georgia court realizes the ramifications that will stem from their decision.

If the ruling by the Georgia court is a beginning to changing the laws to reflect the non-married status of so many couples in today's world......well, it's about time.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

As they stood in court and ran down the character of the other over the course of a ten year relationship, both argued that the final reason the relationship was ending was the infidelity of the other. Because the only thing this pimp and his prostitute could agree on was that each was cheating with another. They had loved each other once, it's true, but for at least a month now, each was engaged to another, inside real relationships. Sadly in each's case, the current relationships both are in are their badges of honor, or, at least, the relationship the other is currently in that was the reason the original relationship ended.

I am.....so lost on what the fuck is going on here.


If I am 67% understanding what all this is about, is this case being brought that he needs to pay this lady because he got engaged to her? Is that what we have come to now? You have to pay someone to break up with them?

there is nothing legally binding about co habitation(unless your name is on the ease), or about being engaged. If the two of you planned to get married and you did all that stuff, and he ended up cheating, welp, guess you hitched your horse to the wrong wagon. You make choices as a concious adult, and sometimes they don't work out. That's life, get a helmet. The circumstances of either of them cheating are irrelevant to me. I feel the same way about marriages, but that ship has sailed long ago.