People get engaged every day and don't make it to the altar. Life gets in the way, various things happen. People cheat. Often, when weddings are called off, there is some money loss, a lot of humiliation, and some degree of mourning that's closer to divorce than to a regular run-of the-mill break-up. And now, there might also be a lawsuit.
More from The Stir: Scorned Bride & Her Groom's Costly Cold Feet
A woman in Chicago is suing her ex-fiance for $95,000 after he called off their October nuptials:
Buttitta, 32, claims Salerno, 31, breached his promise to marry and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her when he told her on Sept. 27, days before their Oct. 2 wedding date, that "he would not marry her." In the suit, Buttitta alleges that Salerno told her that he did not want to go through the wedding since he had returned to his home in Barrington about a year and three months earlier. He had moved to Colorado for about a year for a job that had not worked out, according to the suit.
OK, then. Of course, the money was already spent and the bride, dumped and heartbroken, was expected to eat it -- to the tune of nearly $100K.
Luckily (or unluckily for him) she wasn't down with being dumped and broke, so she fought back, suing him for the costs she had incurred, including food for the 225 guests, $30,000 to rent out the banquet center, nearly $12,000 on flowers, $10,000 for an orchestra, and nearly $5,400 on her dress, veil, and accessories. Yikes.
More from The Stir: I Divorced My Husband But Not His Penis
We could go on all day about whether or not it's wise or even advisable in this economy to spend so much on a wedding. For some, a wedding is a big deal that deserves all the bells and whistles. Personally, I think it's a waste of money, but to each their own. They spent what they spent and he is responsible for at least half of the non-refundable dollars.
Suing may have been her only option to get that money back, and for many, $95,000 represents a year of salary. It's a lot of money and not something to be taken lightly. In fact, she is arguing that because the contract was marriage and she held up her end of the bargain, he owes her for the entire wedding because he broke it.
She has a point. And while marriages that end divide assets evenly (or by some bizarre family court formula), there is no legal repercussion for communal property in a split like this. We would all say that a woman who left a man at the altar should return the ring, right? So why should the one who broke off the engagement also pay for all wedding expenses?
It just makes sense. I hope she wins and I hope this guy learns his lesson next time.
Do you think she should have to pay for the canceled wedding?
Image via Facebook
More from The Stir:Men From the Sticks Have Bigger ...