homeWelcome, sign in or click here to subscribe.login
     


 

 

Opinion


print  email to a friend  reprints add to mydjc  
Andrew Bergh
Andrew Bergh

September 14, 2000

Will you marry me?

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

“But your Honor, the defendant promised he would marry me if I got an abortion. And then the dirty louse went back on his word.”

True, marriage is a civil contract of sorts. So when either spouse wants to end that contract, divorce court is just down the street.

But what about the marriage that never was – and particularly that louse who breached his promise to marry? Can this scumbag likewise be taken to court? As shown by M.N. v. D.S., the answer, at least in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, is a resounding “No!”

Let’s flash back to March 1995.

That’s when M.N., an unmarried woman from Minneapolis, learned she was pregnant. M.N. dutifully told her paramour, D.S., who she thought was the father. (To protect the couple’s privacy, court records only identify them by their initials.)

All in all, D.S., a successful – and married – businessman, took the news pretty well. He hired a lawyer and advised M.N., through the lawyer, that he would either pay child support for the unborn child once paternity was established, or negotiate a settlement. Realizing she was in over her head, M.N. likewise hired a lawyer to represent her interests.

Barely two months later, the parties struck a deal.

According to their agreement, D.S. promised to pay M.N. $75,000, plus her medical and legal expenses, if she terminated her pregnancy.

In return, M.N. agreed that once the abortion was performed and the required payments were made, D.S. would be released from any further claims arising from the pregnancy. M.N. also acknowledged in writing that she had entered into the agreement voluntarily, with no threats, duress or coercion by D.S.

A short time later M.N. went to Madison in neighboring Wisconsin to obtain a legal abortion. After she waited 24 hours as required by Wisconsin law, the procedure was safely performed. (M.N. also signed a mandatory consent form, acknowledging that her decision to undergo the abortion was a “product of her free will” and that nobody forced or coerced her to terminate the pregnancy.)

D.S. then lived up to his part of the bargain by paying M.N. $75,000, as well as her medical and legal expenses.

End of story, right?

Hardly.

Although the domestic front was quiet for about two years, M.N. broke the peace in May 1997 by suing D.S. out of the blue.

Contrary to what she signed two years earlier, M.N. claimed she never wanted the abortion and that D.S. “coerced” her into having it. The source of the coercion? D.S.’s alleged promises to leave his wife, marry M.N., and have more children.

M.N. further claimed that as the result of these false promises, she had suffered emotional distress, psychological injuries and even a loss of income.

Right out the shoot, D.S. had a pretty good defense. I’m referring to the written release, signed by M.N., which waived any additional claims against D.S. arising from the pregnancy.

But D.S.’s best argument rested on a Minnesota statute that was passed in 1978.

In no uncertain terms, this law officially abolished all civil actions based on alleged promises to marry. This enactment was needed as a matter of public policy, said the lawmakers, because actions based on broken promises to marry had been subject to grave abuses, harassed innocent people and encouraged fraudulent claims.

I wasn’t there, so I don’t know whether D.S. ever promised to marry M.N. and have more children if she aborted her pregnancy.

But I do know that in 1999, the trial court dismissed M.N.’s claims on the ground they were no longer recognized under Minnesota law.

Did M.N. call it quits?

Of course not.

Handling her own appeal, M.N. argued that she wasn’t really suing D.S. for breaching a promise to marry. Instead, the ex-lover claimed, her suit was based, among other things, on D.S.’s fraud, misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

But the appeals court disagreed.

Whatever labels M.N. used, said the court, her essential allegation was that D.S. had failed to tie the knot as promised. And since all claims based on an alleged promise to marry have been abolished in Minnesota, the court ultimately ruled that her lawsuit was properly dismissed.

This, of course, was hardly the news M.N. was hoping to hear.

But hopefully, M.N.’s loss in the courtroom was nothing compared to a certain ordeal she endured over five years ago.


Seattle lawyer Andrew Bergh, a former prosecutor and insurance defense attorney, now limits his practice to plaintiff's personal injury cases. He fields questions via email at andy@berghlaw.com.


Previous columns:



Email or user name:
Password:
 
Forgot password? Click here.