Jilted husband sues runaway bride who $72,000

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104
Jilted husband sues runaway bride who $72,000

She was a runaway bride ? but not before allegedly grabbing $72,000 in wedding gifts on her way out.

A Brooklyn man claims his pregnant fianc?e bolted just two days after their traditional Chinese wedding and refuses to return a $24,000, two-carat diamond engagement ring and a pile of cash and checks, according to a new lawsuit.

Kevin Li, of Bay Ridge, says Amy Chan, 33, also made off with two diamond necklaces, three gold necklaces, a gold ring and a gold bracelet that generous relatives showered on the happy couple.

Just days after the lavish nuptials, she told him she was going to her parents? house for the night ? but never came back and cut off communication with him completely, according to the suit.

The couple had been dating for a year when Chan became pregnant, according to Manhattan Supreme Court papers.

They got engaged, but Li claims that Chan declined to wed legally because she said she was on a waiting list for an apartment and feared their combined marital income would make her ineligible for the Financial District studio.

So instead of going to City Hall for a license, Li and Chan celebrated their union by hosting more than 100 friends and relatives at a popular Chinatown dim sum restaurant.

The couple, who both work in finance, gave the gifts to Chan?s mother to ?inventory,? but Li says he never saw them again.

After spending the night at her parents? Manhattan apartment, Chan officially dumped Li a week later, according to court papers. But not before returning to their Brooklyn home to clear out more gifts, he alleges.

The thousands of dollars Chan took before she left included a $36,500 ?betrothal? payment Li made to his future mother-in-law, funds that were supposed to be gifted back to the couple, according to the suit.

Li says he only wants to return the gifts to his relatives, but Chan told The Post her ex isn?t being truthful. ?He?s lying,? she said. ?He is a devil.?

Chan charges that Li is the one who cut off communication and that he is also holding onto wedding presents: cash given by her relatives. She describes him as a deadbeat and uncaring dad to their twin boys.

?What I got myself into was a disaster relationship,? she said bitterly. ?He took everything [from] my relatives. They gave me tons of money, that [he] took. If he won?t give that back, I?m not giving him back anything. He?s not a human being.?

Li?s lawyer, Phil Brown, denied that his client was a deadbeat and said they hoped to resolve the conflict. Li is asking a judge to force Chan to return the jewels and cash.

Runaway bride refuses to return $72,000 in wedding gifts: lawsuit - NYPOST.com

OK, here's an interesting twist. The jilted "husband" is suing for the return of wedding gifts from a wedding that was thrown even though the couple didn't plan to get legally married. Would you attend a "wedding" for a couple that you knew wasn't even planning to get married? Most people who throw a wedding-without-marriage are doing it because they can't get married, i.e. same sex couples, not because they're waiting for a low-income apartment. And since they didn't get married at all, doesn't etiquette say the gifts need to be returned to the well-wishers anyway?

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yes, I would attend a wedding without marriage. Some people don't want to be legally married but want to celebrate their love, and if I cared about them I would want to celebrate that with them without judgment. I would have zero issues buying gifts for such a celebration.

An engagement ring is part of a contract to wed. Since the contract was never enacted, she owes it, and the gifts, back to him, IMO. Since the "marriage" lasted a matter of days, they should return the gifts back to everyone who gifted them. He, and her, should both end up with no gifts, and he should end up with the ring.

They all sound like shady people :/

Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I would go to a ceremony even if they weren't getting married and I would bring a gift.

She needs to give back the ring as she broke it off. They both need to return everything they got since they broke up.

This whole things reeks to high heaven of bad behavior. Agreed with Melissa..shady people indeed.

Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

They got engaged, but Li claims that Chan declined to wed legally because she said she was on a waiting list for an apartment and feared their combined marital income would make her ineligible for the Financial District studio.

I disagree on the ring.

He proposed.
She said no because of the housing thing.
He didn't ask for it back at that time thus removing the conditions placed on it.

The wedding gifts should be returned to the people who gave them the gifts.

Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

The more I thought about the ring....is it bothering anyone else that he gave her a 24,000 ring but she said no to marriage because then her income was too high for this apartment. Was she ever planning on living with him? I'm assuming if he could afford a $24,000 ring he could easily afford a nice place in Brooklyn.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I see that as a non issue. The intention was to never legally marry but to have this ceremony, the intention was to live together and raise their children together ~ she broke that contract within days......

I guess it could be technically argued that in going through with the ceremony she kept her "contract"....but would you really argue that in leaving two days later she kept to the spirit of the intent of the ceremony, which was theoretically to bind them for more than like 48 hours or whatever? I wouldn't. Ethically the right thing to do would be to return the ring, any way you slice it, in my book of morals.

Also, unfortunately I do know plenty of people who have gone in over their heads on rings that they oughtn't have. Some who have even carried ring debt into marriage, thus making the ring marital debt (so icky if you ask me, then the engagement ring debt becomes part hers!). Just because he bought a pricey ring didn't necessarily mean that he could afford a nice place ~ she might have made a ton more income than him and he could have been trying to impress her/banking on her future salary in their "marriage" to help pay off the ring debt. Who knows. I've heard of weirder. She could have found out he was financially a sham during their engagement and felt entitled to keep this money to shield against debts incurred as a couple that she may be liable for, if, say, they took out joint debt or something. Again, hard to tell based on the relatively limited information.......

I'm totally confused on the studio apt and the twin boys, as well. Maybe I'm just a spoiled suburbanite, but can two people and TWINS really live in a NYC studio apt? That sounds like my version of hell. The whole thing sounds like someones been hitting the sake too hard.

Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

That's what bothers me. A studio apartment? Are there income guidelines for one? I guess it bugs me that either he's trying to impress her because she makes a lot of money but she's trying to cram a small family into a cheaper space that could go to a single person. And yes, I know a few people who spent too much but I can't say I've ever known anyone to spend that much on a ring. The most expensive I've ever known IRL was 10,000 and these people could very well afford it.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I disagree on the ring.

He proposed.
She said no because of the housing thing.
He didn't ask for it back at that time thus removing the conditions placed on it.

The wedding gifts should be returned to the people who gave them the gifts.

She didn't say no. She accepted the proposal and agreed to marry him. The article says that they were engaged. She didn't want to get married *now* -- citing the housing thing -- but she seems to have agreed to marry him sometime in the future. She's the one who broke the engagement and she should return the ring.