Man Ordered to pay $50,000 for not Marrying Former Fiancée

A Georgia man was sued by his former Fiancée for “breach of promise to Marry”, and the Georgia Court of Appeals has Ordered the Man to pay his former Fiancée $50,000 for breaching his promise.


In Court documents, it is alleged that the Man proposed to the Women and gave her a ring worth $10,000.  The Man and Women have a Child together and after accepting the Man’s proposal she left her job to raise their Child.  The man was subsequently caught cheating on his Fiancée twice.  The Fiancée alleges that the Man stated he wanted to be with both women; however, changed his mind and asked the Fiancée and the Child to move out.


In Court the Man argued that he had never intended to marry her and although he had given her the ring, he had never said the words ‘will you marry me’.   He also argued that the relationship had been based on an illegal pact because it had been a form of prostitution where he paid for sexual relations.  The Georgia Court ruled in favour of the former fiancée.


As odd as this ruling may appear, in a Canadian decision, Mott v. Trott, an action was commenced in 1941 for damages for breach of promise of marriage.  The Fiancée alleged that she and the Man became engaged in 1908 to be married and when the man had “improved his prospects in life”, he broke off the engagement. The Fiancée commenced the action in 1941, and at trial, on motion for non-suit, the trial judge withdrew the issues from the jury and dismissed the action holding that in 1919 the parties had not been engaged and the Limitations Act (Ont.) barred the right of action.  The trial judge’s decision was set aside by the Ontario Court of Appeal, and in 1943, the Supreme Court of Canada, held that there was some evidence open to construction by the jury, if it viewed it as so, indicating that the Man promised to marry the Fiancée up to shortly before the writ was issued, or that the jury might have inferred from the evidence that the parties mutually abandoned the contract when neither party insisted on its performance for an inordinate length of time; or the jury might have found that a breach occurred at least as early as 1919 – but that these were all questions for the jury.



What happened to that old saying: Promises are meant to be broken?