Good!
Now if they will bring back the right to sue predators for alienation of affection, that will help too.
These “dudes” that want to show how virile they are by having children whose mothers they won’t marry need to find another way to demonstrate their awesomeness, like making money to support the kids
Not enough information on one hand but TOO much on the other hand!
The poor kids! Jeez!
Wow... really? I am all for demanding that the man pay for his child but this? Little story: my cousin got engaged to a man. Their engagement was a little over a year. He bought a nice house, got her a beautiful ring... the whole nine yards. However, during the year she became to really contemplate marriage on a more serious/intensive level and decided that although he was “nice”, they had their differences, too. She wanted children and he didn’t. A few days before the wedding, she just broke down emotionally. She had changed her mind and felt she was going to hurt her parents, family, him, his family etc.. Her Mother said, “Better to NOT walk down that aisle until you are sure”. She later met a man, married, had four beautiful kids and is still married today after 35 years.
I think it would be closer to reality to claim that people are out of control.
Man up and claim your family, douche.
The $50k for breach of promise is ridiculous (IMO). But he should be paying child support until that kid is an adult.
On the one hand this type of judicial meddling in people’s private affairs is very disturbing.
On the other hand I suspect this guy still got quite a bargain here...
“Courts are out of control...
‘
Why do you say that?
He’s a cad but the law makes a poor substitute for ethics.
If the law compelled you to hold the door open for the next entrant would the gesture still constitute good manners.
More laws, more crime.
Cold Feet Walking
She stopped putting out two years ago.
I’d counter sue having here pay the tab for hookers and strippers please
Just damn.
If you can’t trust Ned Kelley who can you trust.
I was getting ready to blast the judge, then I read the above statement. If the statement is true, then there was a verbal contract. The judge was correct.
The irony here is that even without the money, the woman is probably better off having not married the bum.
A woman scorned plus factoring in a 10 year relationship = hell for this guy for years to come. Still don’t think it’s a breach of contract or an issue for a court to decide.
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.
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.
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
This wouldn’t have happened in Virginia where cohabitation is illegal. The woman would not have had grounds to sue.