Ordinarily, I don't give a shit about trials like this, but this time I just have to bring it up:

Jury Awards Jilted Bride $150,000

The fact that I haven't seen this topic anywhere here must mean most people on D3W won't care, but I just want to vent. I think it's ridiculous, and it only proves how poor people's judgment can be (no offense to anyone who thinks differently).

Any thoughts?

It's getting out of hand is'nt it?

There's a movie just like that called "Love Stinks", I wonder if the woman who sued has seen it before.

I wonder if Happy Friar saw it...?

JK Happy, and congrats on (going through with) the wedding!

Yeah, I saw his thread right after I posted this. Awkward.

Happy Friar will be fine, though. The people in the above article were idiots.

Poll stats.. 60% say she deserved the settlement!!?

Those 60% most likely represent certain young and unethical females who believe they have found the new road to easy riches.

Update:

Poll Results
Did RoseMary Shell deserve money for being jilted?
No 62% 16,796
Yes 38% 10,370

The guy probably got off easy ...

so to speak.

Weird.

It's kind of hard to pass judgement with the lack of information. How much debt did she owe and how did it occur? I don't see how the man is at fault.

If I'm just to go by the information presented, it seems like a mean spirited revenge thing.

There's a tad more information not posted in that article. I originally heard this story on a radio show, and they said the ex-fiancee was making about $80,000 a year. I guess I'd be a bit pissed, too, if I lost that kind of salary. But then again, she CHOSE to give up that career to be with him. That's the stupidest move any person can make in their life--giving up a successful career for the "love of their life." There will always be the risk of being dumped even if you make this kind of committment. What an idiot.

The man was even dumber for even offering to handle all of her debt. Either that moron didn't bother finding how much she actually owed, or she simply wasn't honest about how much debt she was in. I'm thinking the latter, but the man is still a dumbass either way.

The jury was clearly biased. I've seen people like this, since I've been on a jury before. In a case that I was once deliberating, there was a subtle, yet extrememly important detail missing from both sides of the testimony that seven of us needed.
But no! The other five people think there's enough evidence to say the defendant's guilty, which was simply bullshit. They were clearly resorting to their personal perspectives, rather than sticking to the cold, hard facts. I swear this isn't based on my opinion. You need to have been there. There was one, little fact that the seven of us needed in order to make our decision. Reasonable Doubt = Not Guilty

What I would like to know is, why on earth did not one, at least not ONE, person have any kind of reasonable doubt??

so... she moved & quite her job for him, yet never bothered to pay her bills & never bothered to get another job?

I'm not saying that he couldn't of supported both of them, but that's just stupid. Why not wait until AFTER you're married to quit? AFTER your married to move?

I'm betting that an appeal court will throw this out.

Here's another article, with a bit more detailed information:
http://a.abcnews.com/Business/story?id=5442819

I'll admit that the first article I posted wasn't very thorough. At least we now know that the jury had a balance of men and women, but I do question why the ex-fiancee is "thrilled to death" about this verdict. Sure, she won the trial (good for her! ), but that sounds too damn enthusiastic, imo.

I think it's funny how she claims that her ex was seeing another woman. If that's true, what on earth would he have to gain by moving her out to his home state and promising to pay off her debts? Why would he go through the trouble of already paying off $30,000 of her debt if he didn't even care about her? Either he was pathetic, or she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain (if you know what I mean).

Yeah. I still don't know how she got into debt in the first place. I guess I'm supposed to assume it's a result of quitting her job and making wedding arrangements.

But I still don't see how the man owes her a hundred and fifty thousand. If they wanted to be together, so far as we know either one of them could have moved. Certainly they discussed the issue, came to a mutual agreement, and by the time it was over she had to have known full well the implications of uprooting and moving to Georgia.

Quitting her job and losing the associated benefits is irrelevant as she bears responsibility for that no less than the man who encouraged her to take that course of action. Ultimately it was still her choice. Why compensate her for making a bad one?

Life is full of risks but you decide when to take them. Sometimes it pays off and other times it doesn't. Clearly in this case, she took a risk and it didn't pan out.

I'm curious to know the terms of their relationship prior to the engagement. I mean you have two people who live in different states and they decide to marry. How did they meet? How often did they visit each other? How long were they a "couple"? I get the impression that these folks haven't known each other for very long in which case getting married was a stupid idea on both of their parts.

The only concession I'd make at this point is refunding half of what was spent on wedding arrangements. That's really the only thing she's entitled to. The irony of it all is that she's been awarded more money than I've seen some folks get in a divorce.

I've read about THAT happening, but I don't see any "breach of contract" they're talking about. Heck, if THAT'S the case, we all can sue id if they change a feature on RAGE between now & release, or change anything for that mater.

WTF ever happened to "personal responsibility"??????

What is this mysterious 'responsibility' of which you speak?

Ordinarily, I don't give a shit about trials like this, but this time I just have to bring it up:

Jury Awards Jilted Bride $150,000

The fact that I haven't seen this topic anywhere here must mean most people on D3W won't care, but I just want to vent. I think it's ridiculous, and it only proves how poor people's judgment can be (no offense to anyone who thinks differently).

Any thoughts?

It's getting out of hand is'nt it?

There's a movie just like that called "Love Stinks", I wonder if the woman who sued has seen it before.

I wonder if Happy Friar saw it...?

JK Happy, and congrats on (going through with) the wedding!

Yeah, I saw his thread right after I posted this. Awkward.

Happy Friar will be fine, though. The people in the above article were idiots.

Poll stats.. 60% say she deserved the settlement!!?

Those 60% most likely represent certain young and unethical females who believe they have found the new road to easy riches.

Update:

Poll Results
Did RoseMary Shell deserve money for being jilted?
No 62% 16,796
Yes 38% 10,370

The guy probably got off easy ...

so to speak.

Weird.

It's kind of hard to pass judgement with the lack of information. How much debt did she owe and how did it occur? I don't see how the man is at fault.

If I'm just to go by the information presented, it seems like a mean spirited revenge thing.

There's a tad more information not posted in that article. I originally heard this story on a radio show, and they said the ex-fiancee was making about $80,000 a year. I guess I'd be a bit pissed, too, if I lost that kind of salary. But then again, she CHOSE to give up that career to be with him. That's the stupidest move any person can make in their life--giving up a successful career for the "love of their life." There will always be the risk of being dumped even if you make this kind of committment. What an idiot.

The man was even dumber for even offering to handle all of her debt. Either that moron didn't bother finding how much she actually owed, or she simply wasn't honest about how much debt she was in. I'm thinking the latter, but the man is still a dumbass either way.

The jury was clearly biased. I've seen people like this, since I've been on a jury before. In a case that I was once deliberating, there was a subtle, yet extrememly important detail missing from both sides of the testimony that seven of us needed.
But no! The other five people think there's enough evidence to say the defendant's guilty, which was simply bullshit. They were clearly resorting to their personal perspectives, rather than sticking to the cold, hard facts. I swear this isn't based on my opinion. You need to have been there. There was one, little fact that the seven of us needed in order to make our decision. Reasonable Doubt = Not Guilty

What I would like to know is, why on earth did not one, at least not ONE, person have any kind of reasonable doubt??

so... she moved & quite her job for him, yet never bothered to pay her bills & never bothered to get another job?

I'm not saying that he couldn't of supported both of them, but that's just stupid. Why not wait until AFTER you're married to quit? AFTER your married to move?

I'm betting that an appeal court will throw this out.

Here's another article, with a bit more detailed information:
http://a.abcnews.com/Business/story?id=5442819

I'll admit that the first article I posted wasn't very thorough. At least we now know that the jury had a balance of men and women, but I do question why the ex-fiancee is "thrilled to death" about this verdict. Sure, she won the trial (good for her! ), but that sounds too damn enthusiastic, imo.

I think it's funny how she claims that her ex was seeing another woman. If that's true, what on earth would he have to gain by moving her out to his home state and promising to pay off her debts? Why would he go through the trouble of already paying off $30,000 of her debt if he didn't even care about her? Either he was pathetic, or she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain (if you know what I mean).

Yeah. I still don't know how she got into debt in the first place. I guess I'm supposed to assume it's a result of quitting her job and making wedding arrangements.

But I still don't see how the man owes her a hundred and fifty thousand. If they wanted to be together, so far as we know either one of them could have moved. Certainly they discussed the issue, came to a mutual agreement, and by the time it was over she had to have known full well the implications of uprooting and moving to Georgia.

Quitting her job and losing the associated benefits is irrelevant as she bears responsibility for that no less than the man who encouraged her to take that course of action. Ultimately it was still her choice. Why compensate her for making a bad one?

Life is full of risks but you decide when to take them. Sometimes it pays off and other times it doesn't. Clearly in this case, she took a risk and it didn't pan out.

I'm curious to know the terms of their relationship prior to the engagement. I mean you have two people who live in different states and they decide to marry. How did they meet? How often did they visit each other? How long were they a "couple"? I get the impression that these folks haven't known each other for very long in which case getting married was a stupid idea on both of their parts.

The only concession I'd make at this point is refunding half of what was spent on wedding arrangements. That's really the only thing she's entitled to. The irony of it all is that she's been awarded more money than I've seen some folks get in a divorce.

I've read about THAT happening, but I don't see any "breach of contract" they're talking about. Heck, if THAT'S the case, we all can sue id if they change a feature on RAGE between now & release, or change anything for that mater.

WTF ever happened to "personal responsibility"??????

What is this mysterious 'responsibility' of which you speak?