What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas...

[Barrister]

It seems slow here today, so lets see what you jackals have to say about this:

Bride sues ex-fiancé for allegedly breaching promise to marry
Published 20 minutes agoEmail Print Rss Article


Lauren Serafin, left, has filed a complaint at law against her ex-fiance Robert Leighton, right, for allegedly breaching his promise to marry her. Serafin alleges Leighton had a one-night stand with a woman in Las Vegas during his bachelor party just a month before their wedding date and is seeking damages of $63,000, in addition to further compensation for emotional suffering.

Hennessy & Roach, Sidly Austin
Kenyon Wallace
Toronto Star
It was supposed to be a storybook wedding.

The flowers were ordered. The band and banquet hall were booked. The bridesmaids and flower girls had their dresses.

Love was in the air.

Then it all came crumbling down when Lauren Serafin says she discovered that her fiancé, Robert Leighton, had an alleged one-night stand with a woman during his bachelor party in Las Vegas just a month before the wedding date.

Now Serafin has filed a legal complaint against her ex-husband-to-be for breach of promise to marry and infliction of emotional distress in a case that will no doubt be a lesson to would-be philanderers that what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.

According to court documents, Serafin claims that Leighton and several of his male co-workers, friends and family members headed to Las Vegas about a month before the couple's planned Aug. 21, 2010, wedding.

Serafin alleges it was there that her ex-fiancé met a woman named "Danielle" at a night club, where the two engaged in "amorous acts in public, including, but not limited to, kissing, dancing and other physical contact."

Leighton and the woman then left the night club and went to his hotel room, where, the suit alleges, they engaged in sexual intercourse while Leighton's pals were present in the adjoining room.

"[Leighton] had met Danielle less than twenty four hours prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with her," Serafin alleges in her complaint at law filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois this month.

Serafin is a labour lawyer at the Chicago law firm Hennessy & Roach. Leighton is also a lawyer and practises intellectual property law at the firm Sidley Austin.

Serafin and her lawyer, Enrico Mirabelli, did not respond to interview requests from the Star. Calls and emails to Leighton were not returned.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Serafin says it wasn't until 10 days after Leighton had returned home that she learned of her ex-fiancé's alleged indiscretion when she discovered text messages on Leighton's cellphone from Danielle suggesting that "something happened" in Las Vegas.

When confronted by Serafin, Leighton denied that anything happened between himself and Danielle, the suit claims, "seemingly believing that 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas'."

After further pressing by Serafin, however, Leighton allegedly admitted he knew the other woman and that they had "made out," but denied having sexual intercourse with her. Leighton then told Serafin he had no intention of marrying her anymore, and moved out, according to court documents.

Leighton eventually admitted that he "hooked up" with Danielle in Las Vegas, the suit alleges, and blamed Serafin for his actions.

Serafin says she continues to suffer "severe emotional distress," including depression and humiliation, brought on in part by having to break the news to all her family and friends that the wedding was being called off.

Serafin also says Leighton "knew or should have known the possibility of transmitting a sexually transmitted disease" to her. She does not claim to have contracted any STD.

She is now seeking nearly $63,000 in damages to recoup the costs of planning the wedding, including her dress and veil, flowers, invitations, dresses and gifts for her bridesmaids and a catering order with the Ritz-Carlton Chicago.

She is also asking the court for "other relief," a legal term for more money to compensate her for emotional distress.

"What she's trying to do here is not only get actual damages, but something for the pain and suffering her former partner allegedly caused her," Linda Lea Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, told the Star from her office in South Dakota. "Logically, that could be a doubling or tripling of the actual damages."

Serafin and Leighton became engaged in July 2009 and were expecting 170 people to attend the wedding, according to Serafin's claim.

Karen Stewart, president and CEO of Fairway Divorce Solutions, a Calgary-based company specializing in alternative divorce mediation, said she believes Serafin should not view herself as the victim and agree to split the cost of the wedding preparations with Leighton.

"In every single relationship that's not totally right, there are yellow flags, but we tend to ignore them," Stewart told the Star.

"She should be thanking her lucky stars. She could have married him. For $30,000, that's a pretty cheap life lesson."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/956113--bride-sues-ex-fiance-for-allegedly-breaching-promise-to-marry?bn=1

[Eddie Teach]

On the one hand, he's a heel. On the other hand, that's no reason he should have to pay for her attention-whore wedding. $63k? Fuck that noise.

[Josquius]

She needs a slap.

[MadImmortalMan]

I would award the guy money for emotional damages and general wtf-ness.

[Barrister]

It is actually a valid tort - the breach of promise to marry.

You can probably tell its origins go at least as far back as the 19th century, but it's never been abolished.

I think the claim for the wedding costs is completely valid, IMHO.  The emotional damages, on the other hand...

[Ed Anger]

I like to watch Bridezillas and just laaaaaaaaaaaaugh.

[DontSayBanana]

It is actually a valid tort - the breach of promise to marry.

You can probably tell its origins go at least as far back as the 19th century, but it's never been abolished.

I think the claim for the wedding costs is completely valid, IMHO.  The emotional damages, on the other hand...

My problem is this: was the walking out a cause or an effect?  Did he just decide, "Nah, I'm not gonna marry you," or did he get fed up and walk out on a shrill harpy?  Sure the "damage" might be to her, but if she caused it by driving him out when she went nuts, shouldn't that cancel out?

[HVC]

It is actually a valid tort - the breach of promise to marry.

You can probably tell its origins go at least as far back as the 19th century, but it's never been abolished.

I think the claim for the wedding costs is completely valid, IMHO.  The emotional damages, on the other hand...

If she herself* accumulated costs over and above what was needed (how much does license cost?) whould he really be liable? Serious question.


* i mean really, how many guys are that involved in the wedding planning?

[Barrister]

It is actually a valid tort - the breach of promise to marry.

You can probably tell its origins go at least as far back as the 19th century, but it's never been abolished.

I think the claim for the wedding costs is completely valid, IMHO.  The emotional damages, on the other hand...

My problem is this: was the walking out a cause or an effect?  Did he just decide, "Nah, I'm not gonna marry you," or did he get fed up and walk out on a shrill harpy?  Sure the "damage" might be to her, but if she caused it by driving him out when she went nuts, shouldn't that cancel out?

Read the article.

After further pressing by Serafin, however, Leighton allegedly admitted he knew the other woman and that they had "made out," but denied having sexual intercourse with her. Leighton then told Serafin he had no intention of marrying her anymore, and moved out, according to court documents.

She confronted him.  He denied it, then admitted it, then he called it off.

[Barrister]

It is actually a valid tort - the breach of promise to marry.

You can probably tell its origins go at least as far back as the 19th century, but it's never been abolished.

I think the claim for the wedding costs is completely valid, IMHO.  The emotional damages, on the other hand...

If she herself* accumulated costs over and above what was needed (how much does license cost?) whould he really be liable? Serious question.


* i mean really, how many guys are that involved in the wedding planning?

Well it's not a contractual issue.  Rather it's a tort.  So yes, he may well be liable.

[Legbiter]

In my neck of the woods bringing a suit like that would just advertise the fact to other females that you couldn't keep your man. Mind you Iceland is just a fishing village on steroids.

[DontSayBanana]

Read the article.

She confronted him.  He denied it, then admitted it, then he called it off.

One could read that as journalist-speak for "all hell broke loose, and he left in a huff," though; it could go either way, based on the article.

Was the guy a heel?  Sure.  I just don't like the idea of someone being able to drive their partner away and then successfully sue them for it.

[Admiral Yi]

  Fucking shysters.

[Barrister]

Fucking shysters.

Fixed yer post.

[Admiral Yi]

Eating oysters.

Fixed yer post.