Dec 14th 2010 By Nicole Sia
Bride Sues Groom for Leaving Her at the Altar -- To the Tune of $95K
Dominique Buttitta, a lawyer in Chicago, is taking her ice-footed former fiancé to court for bailing on their big day just four days before the ceremony was supposed to go down. The jilted bride claims that by calling it quits, the groom "intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on her. She's reportedly seeking more than $95,000 from her ex -- money, she says, that she'd already spent on the wedding.
I think she may have a case, and not just because people sue for less than this every day. I've had neighbors sue other neighbors when their dog crapped on the lawn. Buttitta's fiance crapped on her life. Not only is she now being portrayed as a bitter, spurned woman, she's in the hole for a whole lot of zeros.
Planning a wedding is a big, long, intricate process. I know; I'm in the middle of planning mine. Pick up any issue of "The Knot" and they'll tell you: planning a wedding takes about nine months to a year. And those are a packed nine to 12 months of making lists, touring venues, tasting cakes and spending thousands of dollars in nonrefundable deposits. There's the dress, the rings, flowers -- Buttitta says she spent over $12,500 on those -- invitations, escort cards and a ton of other things that take up a whole lot of time and even more of your money. It's ridiculous.
Now let's get one thing straight. Is this guy allowed to break off the engagement? Absolutely. Acceptance of an engagement ring is not a binding contract to marry, because in America, we don't allow contracts for selling people (see the 13th Amendment). Also, in retrospect, Buttitta ended up SUING HIM FOR $100 GRAND. I don't think I would want to marry anyone who would sue me for anything, let alone 10 times my net worth. So yeah, bro, you have the right to change your mind. Granted.
But during all that planning, all the list-making, cake-tasting and tuxedo-renting, Buttitta's fiance had plenty of time to put a hand up and say, "Hey, maybe this isn't the best idea." When he finally did, it was at the 11th hour. That's after the dress is paid for in full, the venue is paid in full, the florist has received the shipments of flowers, the baker has molded the gum-paste flowers, the guests have booked their hotel rooms -- the point at which the absolute most amount of money that could be spent was spent without hope of recovery. And that, in this recessed economy, is an even bigger humiliation than being abandoned by a guy with cold feet.
Just ask Bonni Fierstein, 36, a former bride whose groom-to-be called off their wedding with just four months to go. After the nuptials got nixed, Fierstein's parents asked her ex to pony up for half of the canceled venue's deposit, a total of about $7,000, that the family never saw again.
"He sent them a letter and said that he refused to," Fierstein explains. "He said he loved us all, but I lived with him for a year and a half, and that was his payment for the wedding."
For Fierstein, the missing cash was a bigger blow than the end of her six-year relationship.
"In time you get over it and as much as it hurts when it happens, in the end, it's a better decision than marrying someone who isn't in love with you," she says. "To this day, the thing I feel the worst about is that I cost my parents as much money as I did."
The point is, Buttitta's fiance lied. He tricked her into believing that spending that money was not for nothing.
Just think about it. Had they pulled the trigger and walked down the aisle, their assets would have been combined, so it didn't matter which of them fronted the costs. Just as their lives were to be joined, so were their debts. And unless the bride was baller like that and paid for everything in cash, there would have been residual costs that the couple, together, would've been paying off for some time. I say, he's on the hook for his share. Go get 'em, girl.
Nicole Sia is not a lawyer, but she is engaged, and therefore entitled to her strong opinion. She's also a frequent contributor to Lemondrop, where she recently wrote, "My Clothes Weren't Hip Enough for The Secondhand Store"
From Our Partners
Sponsored Links
Most Popular Articles
Tag Cloud
relationships tmz giveaway christmas facebook research incest fashion LittleFockers holidays breakups contest regifting health lisbon
Most Commented Articles
- Bride Sues Groom for Leaving Her at the Altar -- To the Tune of $95K
- 'Whatever' Crowned Most Annoying Word for Two Years Running
- Is This the World's Most Foolproof Pick-Up Line?
- A Single Girl's Guide to Surviving the Holidays
- Lemondrop Readers Weigh In -- Is Regifting Bad Etiquette?
Treasure Chest
Discover inspiring videos on TEDWomen where people are reshaping our future with ideas.
View the Video »
Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 14 December
By Amanda
I don't necessarily agree. It depends on what he did that "intentionally inflicted emotional distress." If he asked her to marry him, encouraged her to plan a huge, expensive wedding, then waited until it was too late to get any money back or cancel announcements just to make her poorer and an object of pity to everyone she knows, then by all means make the jerk pay. If it was just coming to the realization he wasn't prepared to get married too close to the wedding date, then she's just being vindictive.
Really, would going through with it only to divorce her a few months later be the better solution? Sure, she would have had her big day, so the money wouldn't have been for nothing. But then, wouldn't she still be ticked off that she's now divorced and dealing those legal hassles after making a huge deal about the wedding because he didn't have the guts or courtesy to tell her he wasn't sure beforehand?
Reply
Wednesday 15 December
By Katie
Um, no. He asked her to marry him and witnessed her going through all the motions to plan and pay for a wedding, with a date they selected. The only thing she did wrong was not making him pay for things with her along the way. I guarantee once cold hard cash and credit were coming out of HIS pocket the objection to marriage would have come a lot sooner. It's always easier to gamble with someone else's money, so I hope she wins.
Wednesday 15 December
By MARRIED 35
It is not wrong to ask the guy (or gal) who opts out of the wedding to pay for the expenses incurred - they are real and were intended for the mutual benefit of both. Better still, get both parties to agree up front to help pay for the wedding. The dowery system is dead.
Even better still - lets put an end to these foolishly expensive weddings and receptions. My wife and I were married under the trees at her family farm in South Dakota. Our marriage has been very happy for for 35 years - an expensive reception is a waste of money all the way around.
Thursday 16 December
By Howard
After reading this article, I have decided that I do not have enough information to intelligently commit to an informed opinion. There are always three sides to every story and we only have part of one side. The only truths, as I see it, are the brides right to sue and the grooms right to call it off. I do wonder what happened on d-day minus 5 to cause the groom to cancel further festivities. Was the stripper at his bachelor party that hot and did she profess her eternal love for him? Did the bride announce her plans to hyphenate her last name and enroll him in Jewish conversion classes? Ahhh, we'll never know now, will we? " Bigamy is having one wife too many...and so is monogamy!"
Thursday 16 December
By MRS X
The point here is not that he backed out - that was smart. Better now than later. The point is that when he DID back out, he did not immediately offer to make an arrangement to at least share the expenses, if not offer to shoulder all the expenses already met.
Thursday 16 December
By Ocngrl
Amanda,
You are very nieve if you think for one minute this groom to be was a poor unsuspecting soul. COME ON!!! He knew all about the 100k wedding his fiance was planning and had an active part in it all the way down the line. Yes he has the right to change his mind, but as the writer pointed out that doesnt mean he is not Financially responsible for his end of it!! Why should this woman have to pay for the whole thing herself? Deposits CANNOT be refunded and most vendors have you pay in full at least 30 days before the wedding takes place. He should have to pay for the entire wedding in my opinion-he is the one who cancelled the deal.
Thursday 16 December
By CARAMELALC91
Canceling or walking out five days before the wedding day is emotionally distressing; especially after you've put months into planning for this special day. She loved this man and she thought that he loved her. You open yourself up totally when you make the decision to ask someone to marry you, and also when you accept that proposal. He didn't just stand her up for dinner and a movie. He flaked out on their wedding. You put your heart on the line for this person. Reading stories like these have really changed my mine about the institution of marriage. I already have trust issues, this just reaffirms my inability open up to people. Good luck girl. This was just a lesson in life, and hopefully you learned something.
Thursday 16 December
By Linda
Yes
Thursday 16 December
By GPF
Sounds like another control freak ball busting woman who probably decided that the weekly love session which she was so gracious to allow was off due to the stress of the wedding planning! He got smart and ran for the hills! Give me a break, if this isn't thrown out of court with authority the legal system will have failed yet again. From the sounds of it she is about 10 years away from a lesbian affair and a vibrator. GOOD FOR HIM!!! Run brother, run!!! Better to face this joke of a lawsuit than a divorce, alimony, child support... and all of the other atrocities perpetrated on men by the modern day court system.
Thursday 16 December
By Lake
Realistically she is no different than others who have been left at the alter. But what if she deliberatley spent more than she had, forcing him into a difficult financial position? He may counter sue in court for her going above and beyond both their means. After all 4 days before the wedding she had spent 95,000 that is a butt load of cash. She could have saved if she had used save creatively . com
Thursday 16 December
By saqsay
I agree with everything you say. There has to be more to this story. You never know, maybe he got freaked out by 'The Royal Wedding' she was planning with all the huge costs. Or maybe she turned into a Bridezilla. Either way I would love to know his side of it.
Chances are he was crazy to marry a Lawyer anyway. I bet he got off cheaper this way. She would have taken him to the cleaners during a divorce..
Thursday 16 December
By barrister
the bride is a lawyer and presumably knows the elements of intentional infliction of emotional injury...and they are lacking in what was written here. assuming she had more sense in law school than she did in pissing away 100k after spending 200k on learning, she should know that there is no binding contract, only blackmail in heaping a huge pile of cash into a party. ("...but we HAVE to go through with it!")
the guy and the girl are making a lifetime commitment to each othe (apparently a small fact that got lost here) including their spending habits and common sense. if he saw through that, more power to him.
she and her parents have allowed this profligate potlatch (hist note: the native americans of the northwest used to hold a ceremony by that name in which goods and wealth were burned to acquire status in the tribe) to get insanely out of hand just because the neighbors and her sorority sisters are also insane.
when are we gonna learn that a wedding should not be a cosmic replay of the senior prom, foiks! not a showcase for every materialistic, warped bridezilla to wallow in a cheap imitation of long-dead czarist excess?
our last family wedding came in for 5k; 130 guests, including a meal. a civic center with lots of internet-discount flowers, ipod music, walk-through food line, open bar. photographer. and everybody had fun, but nobody became confused that they had wandered inadvertently into one of the inaugural dinner dances.
in sum, they are both wrong and the law will give her no redress for mistakes in choosing a groom (sounds like he is a dud who finally decided he would be over-matched for the next X years until the celebrity divorce). but his lack of "sacking up" and offering advice to hold it down earlier in the financial debauch does not make him legally obliged. and her 7 years of higher education that never produced a lick of common sense should tell her that her legal theory sux. i hope he moves for fees and costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit. a pox on both of them.
Thursday 16 December
By Foday
I agree with Amanda. Its best to know early than to marry and find out later that the guy wasn't really into her and be embarrassed. Since the wedding didn't happen, she should consider herself fortunate. I wish her luck suing and getting the sum
Thursday 16 December
By CM
I don't see why she shouldn't have the right. Legally if a woman decides that she does not want to go through with an engagement, she is required to return the ring no matter what. The courts view it as a binding contract on the basis of the end result being: marriage. If she turns around and says, "nah, never mind" the contract is voided and the binding "agreement" (the ring) has to go back to the jilted groom. If she sells it, or throws it out or something, she has to pay the dough.
Why shouldn't the jilted bride have any of the same rights with respect to this promise being broken in the way it was. If nothing else, the man should have at least had the DECENCY to even offer to pay for some of the costs based on the fact that it was on his head it all fell through. You already broke her heart, but no, you don't get to break her bank too.
Thursday 16 December
By Connie
Why should she have to lose everything she paid into having this wedding regardless of his feelings for backing out...he should pay PERIOD!!!
Thursday 16 December
By Annie
Whether he agreed or not to a large wedding, he knew that money was being spent. And he probably knew all along that he wasn't being honest with her about when or if to tie the knot. He was dishonest. He could have at any time backed out way before. I had this happen to a friend of mine. He didn't show up on the wedding day. What a coward. I can't describe the amount of pain he caused EVERYONE and I'm including the guests. It was devastating to all. If you don't want to be married, do not ask someone to spend the rest of their life with you. In other words, do not lie.
Thursday 16 December
By Paul
Why are people brining up...."oh she would have been a horrible wife"...Divorce this, divorce that...THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE! stop making assumptions!
Thursday 16 December
By Bahmeh
I agree with Amanda and the other level headed posters here not infected with emotional baggage. Should he pay for half? Possibly. We simply don't have enough of the story to go on. There are unnamed variables here left unsaid and it's all from one side, the jilted one. We should also take into account that this writer, Nicole Sia, has her own ax to grind here as it states in the bottom of the article that she's currently engaged, thus making her opinion all the more tainted with her own possible insecurities, misgivings and emotions. I mean, she ended the artcle with "Go get 'em, girl." Really? Fearful hubby-to-be may bail?
Also, he should be returned the ring, doesn't matter if her feelings are hurt, if he must pay half he must be returned the item (if he paid for it or otherwise owned it prior to giving it to her.) It's only fair since it would be an equal split then after the bills are paid up. Each party leaves with what was brought in.
Too often the jilted (and their angry supporters) only want to hurt the accused party, damn any fairness. It's partly the reason why our civil courts are so overwhelmed: angry people seeking to ruin out of pettiness following a misguided and warped sense of vengence rather than honest and true justice. The other reason of course being simply greed and seeing how much they can milk someone.
Now I shall be voted down by the angry ones. oh woes is me. ;)
Thursday 16 December
By destiny
i agree with this comment...it's better off now then divorce later.
I think the bride wanted to sue him because she's mad as hell.
Thursday 16 December
By Mark
I Agree 100% with Amanda.
Under this ridiculous notion that the writer of the piece has, what would be the appropriate time to back out of a bad engagement? 10th hour; 10th.5 hour; 9th hour, etc.?
The bride's family apparently arranged the wedding and reception, not the groom. What if he didn't want to spend $95,000 on those things. Why should he be responsible for half of the cost of something he didn't want to pay for.
It is WAY TOO slippery of a slope to hold people responsible for legitimately wanting to back out of a wedding.