By Meistergedanken
In a significant decision that attracted a minimal amount of attention in the media, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in February that affection in and of itself is insufficient to meet the legal requirement of “consideration” necessary to constitute a contract.
I imagine that contract law varies from state to state; in Ohio (where I reside) one must meet three requirements for a legal contract. You must have an offer, an acceptance and consideration. In this context, “consideration” describes a transaction of sorts whereby one party gains a benefit or right from the other party while incurring a debt, taking on an obligation or gaining a responsibility.
The particulars of the case of Williams v. Ormsby (Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-690) are these: in 2004 Amber Williams (already a divorcee) and Frederick Ormsby formed a romantic relationship and by May of that year Mr. Ormsby had moved into his girlfriend’s house. By July they were engaged. In a development that will surprise no one here, Ormsby took over the responsibility of the finances of the couple; he paid the property taxes as well as the entire mortgage for the house. For her part, Williams transferred the title of the property over to her fiancé.
Then, things took a turn for the worse. The relationship went bust and the wedding was called off. Ormsby and Williams drew up a contract to the effect that the house would be sold, with the first $324,000 of the net proceeds (essentially the amount he paid into the house) of the sale going to Ormsby. Anything above that amount would go to Ms. Williams.
Then things took a turn towards crazy. Weeks after the aforementioned agreement was signed, the two decided that there were still mutual romantic feelings. They engaged the services of a couples counselor and resumed their relationship. However, Ms. Williams stipulated an additional condition – she refused to resume their engagement or move back into the house unless Ormsby gave her a 50% stake in the property. Ormsby dutifully complied with her demand and a second contract was drawn up to that effect. I can’t help but think that at some point Amber Williams happened to catch the film Intolerable Cruelty (which came out in 2003) on cable, and picked up some devious ideas. Anyone see where this is headed?
The relationship soured again, and by 2007 the couple were sufficiently estranged that they were living in separate portions of the house, and in 2008 they filed lawsuits against each other. Williams demanded the second contract be honored, while Ormsby only accepted the first contract that made him the sole owner.
This is where it gets interesting. A county court ruled in 2009 that the second contract was invalid because Ms. Williams hadn’t given up anything in return for the financial benefit of half the property. There was no “consideration”. In 2010 an appeals court disagreed – claiming that the love and affection Williams showered upon her beloved at the time in fact fulfilled her side of the bargain. Then, it was off to the state Supreme Court.
The court overturned the appeals court ruling, deciding by a convincing 5 – 1 vote (one justice did not vote for some reason) that “gratuitous promises are not enforceable as contracts because there is no consideration.” A gift, on the other hand, requires no such condition – but unlike contracts the regulation of gifts does not fall within the purview of the court system (as far as I know). The ruling further stated that “The evidence demonstrates that the only consideration offered by Amber Williams for the June 2005 agreement was her resumption of a romantic relationship with Frederick Ormsby. There is no detriment to Amber…only benefit.” And the quote that delivers the coup de grace, “We hold that merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for the formation of a contract.”
When asked by the court if Ms. Williams had given up “anything of value” that merited consideration for the contract, she replied, “I didn’t pay him anything, no. I thought what was of value was the fact that we were sharing all sorts of things. He had my love.” Ah, chutzpah. This pattern has been identified here before, of course. His love (they were “sharing”, after all) accounts for nothing, while hers was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars!
I am not going to claim that this ruling marks a historic turning point for men, or even a monumental decision, but it is nonetheless of great importance. In effect, an [unmarried] cohabitating woman can no longer legally claim that she is entitled to half your stuff because she was intimate with you, shared her feelings and occasionally boiled you an egg for breakfast. As more couples choose to cohabitate rather than marry, this ruling may provide men desperately needed protection from would-be asset-strippers (my least favorite kind of stripper, BTW).
An epilogue to this tale: it is of considerable interest to note that of the seven justices on the Supreme Court, six are Republicans and the remaining one is a Democrat. The judge that was in the minority, Justice Paul Pfeifer, is a Republican – although he has often aligned with Democrats on the court over the course of his tenure. He dissented on the grounds that the second contract was worded exactly the same way as the first, was between the same parties and concerned the same property, so the second contract should be as valid, even though the “valuable consideration” it mentioned has completely unstated specifics. In this sense he seems to be at least attempting to adhere to a strict interpretation of the law, and as such is hardly an activist judge, merely a misguided one.
To those who consistently and tediously assert that there is no discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans (of which some of the latter are balking at expanded provisions of the VAWA proposed by the former at the moment I write this during the month of April) I ask: do you or anyone here believe that this same ruling could have been issued, in say, California or Massachusetts? If nothing else, it behooves men to elect a political party that will not appoint judges that are inherently hostile to men’s interests; even indifference is preferable to the creeping horrors of liberal activism in America’s courtrooms.
Full opinion at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-ohio-690.pdf
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Well written!
The price of poon just dropped again.
Soon we will have wanton women throwing themselves upon us as we traverse the common streets.
Rough quote
“In the latter days there will be 12 women to a man,saying,we will feed and cloth ourselves,just let us have your name.”
You don’t have to be married in some states to pay alimony.
In Washington and Oregon (and possibly some other states) there exists the legal term of: Meretricious Relationship
In these states, a woman who moves in with you and shares your bed for an indeterminate amount of time is now entitled to financial compensation if you break up.
Basically, the feminists courts and single women have devised a way to get money from men just as an ex-wife might get alimony.
A good friend of mine had this happen about five years ago – it cost him $18,500 to get the woman out of his house after she had lived with him for one year. And I heard a guy on the radio claim it had cost him $55,000 for a six month relationship gone sour.
Google: Meretricious Relationship and you will see lots of attorney ads promoting this so they can start legal proceedings.
If nothing else, it behooves men to elect a political party that will not appoint judges that are inherently hostile to men’s interests; even indifference is preferable to the creeping horrors of liberal activism in America’s courtrooms.
It’s no coincidence that the majority of Democrats are women and the majority of Republicans are men. The partisan divide between genders is stunning, revealing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
This is why we have the “War on Women” narrative, the VAWA dust-up, the “Paycheck Fairness” tussle and ObamaCare. The Democrat Party patronizes to women because women ARE their largest identifiable base.
Left-leaning MRA’s, or those inclined to be abjectly apathetic towards the entire political process, need to understand it’s exactly this apathy that got men and boys in the state they’re in today. Whether you like it or not, Politics is at the root of everything.
The Feminist Machine implicity understands this and uses it to their advantage. Meanwhile the MRM is in a perpetual state of “failure to launch”…under the delusion that if women are an identifibale victim class, then men as a group should be granted the same privilage.
While socially it might seem righteous, it’s Political Insanity to believe it will ever be at all affective. It’s flawed positioning to assume society will ever be sympathetic to something called “Men’s Rights”. You can be an effective Activist for Men as long as you leave out the “M” word. You have to be stealth because the (Liberal) Political Correctness Police are ever vigilant.
Is the GOP ideal?
Of course not.
Is the GOP better for men today?
Obviously yes, and it seems the majority of men agree.
Do you favor Socialism and larger goverment over Capitalism and smaller government? Vote with teh wimmins. That’s what the overwhelming majority of them want. The security of Big Government vs. dependence on a MAN – – at the expense of all Men; those that work and earn tax dollars.
Women want our money for THEIR entitlements, and the Party of Women wants YOU to give it to them.
Times really are starting to change around here.
Scott Walker…………..(Even considering the Unions sending hundreds of people on several buses to vote for the Democrat)………..KICKED that motherfuckers ass yesterday in the recall election.
Democrats ALL OVER the country are getting bitch slapped out of office and I would hope that it’s MEN doing the damage to the “fair sex party”.
All the Democrats have to run on now is a “war on women” and “immigration rights”……..yet the people of this country are sick and fucking tired of putting the same assclowns in office decade after decade.
The VAWA is a total and complete SCAM on the American people…..It’s only purpose is to disarm men, (since you can’t own a firearm once your in the DV system)…….and generate BILLIONS of dollars for hairy legged man hating bitches who want nothing more than to destroy the family.
The Bradley Amendment is a total and complete SCAM on the American MALE since it’s only purpose is to incarcerate and destroy the bonds of Father and Child while at the same time generate BILLIONS for private prisons who get PAID the more men get sent to the clink.
State run Child Support…..err, Chalimony is a total and complete SCAM on the American Family since they care NOTHING about “visitation violations”……….they just want that FUCKING money since once they get it………….Big Daddy Fed sends funds back to the state….which in turn generates MILLIONS of dollars for state budgets……”best interest of the child” MY ASS…………More like, Fuck you pay me………we have single baby mama’s and their new boyfriends to support on your dime.
New raaaaaaaype definitions………….A Total and Complete Scam on the American Male. If that bitch be drinkin………..you better be walking the other way……..otherwise Bubba in cell block 3 might slide his large man meat into your asshole while the Feds pay that private prison BILLIONS of dollars to have your newly expanded asshole sitting there for 10-30 years.
A man named Thomas James Ball lights himself on FUCKING FIRE in front of the courthouse…………but fuck that story…….Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Octomom……….They did basically nothing today but we know ALL ABOUT it…………Meanwhile the government run media sweeps Thomas Ball under the rug since that shit is bad for the BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS we call “Family Court”.
It’s good to see ONE example of the Ohio State Supreme Court actually come up with the RIGHT decision as stated in the story above but we have a LONG way to go…….
Just the few examples I gave above are BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRIES and that my brothers is the battle we face.
Once you get paid BILLIONS of dollars to castrate men daily in various ways…….it’s hard to pull politicians mouths away from the teet those fat man hating harpies provide them to feed on.
Scott Walker and these Judges are on the right path…………but we have one HELL of a battle ahead.
It’ ALWAYS about the money. There is no exception to the rule. As soon as a man shows interest in a woman, the dollar sign comes up. It comes up in the eyes of the woman and it comes up in the eyes of the law makers.
It’s a megatrend that will not go away unless men lose interest in women altogether and use them only for (paid) sex, a quick relief.
No other way out.
Keep all your investments to yourself and never get a woman involved: it’s the surest way to get ass-raped. This is guaranteed 100% of the time.
The manhunt is ongoing and will stop only if you disconnect yourself from the grid.
This society is deadly sick and is on its deathbed: don’t be part of the endgame: pull off!
Have to agree with you on that one. It’s really more like choosing the least bad option. But don’t forget that Republicans also love sending men overseas to get shot to bits.
“gratuitous promises are not enforceable as contracts because there is no consideration.”
Or as Judge Wampner of “The People’s Court” put it : No verbal agreement, either expressed or implied, is binding in a court of law.
I guess the dollar value of her ASSets was less than she thought.
A verbal agreement is exactly worth the paper it’s printed on
Heh…Makes Revelations 18:2-23 take on an altogether new meaning, doesn’t it?
Funny isn’t it how even as more and more people reject the Bible, so much of it keeps on heading in the direction of so many prophecies…
But don’t forget that Republicans also love sending men overseas to get shot to bits.
That’s a Leftist/MRA myth.
Every war the USA was ever engaged in from the Civil War up until the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, was initiated by Democrats, and ended by Republicans. And the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were the first purely volunteer armies. IOW if you don’t want to get “shot to bits”, nobody forced you to join, so don’t. “Manning-up” is voluntary.
Maybe there is hope yet.
It’s sad to say, but in a relationship between a man and a woman, for the man it’s all about love and sex, but for a woman it’s all about money.
And the worst thing is: all the laws that cover the contact between men and women support this golddigging women’s behavior: support it, enable it, and even leverage it to totally absurd amounts.
Meet the wrong woman, be a little naive and it can cost you a ton of money, even lifelong payments.
All laws about marriage, divorce, parenthood, child support, rape, domestic violence, etc… have only one underlying logic and goal: to transfer money from your pocket into her pocket. No matter how they package it, this is always always the goal and the result.
This particular court ruling is truly great, but we still have an enormous way to go before we achieve equality of men and women before the law.
Speaking of much needed legal vicitories for men:
Iowa court allows paternity-fraud lawsuit
Justices hope the threat of litigation will deter mothers from lying about the identity of the father.
IOWA CITY — A mother who falsely represents the identity of the father of her child can be sued for fraud and ordered to pay back financial support she received, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court reluctantly opened the door to claims of paternity fraud, a controversial and particularly messy area of litigation that had not been recognized in Iowa. Chief Justice Mark Cady warned litigants to use caution in bringing such cases, saying they would be hard to prove, emotional and embarrassing.
@ freebird
Well written!
The price of poon just dropped again.
Soon we will have wanton women throwing themselves upon us as we traverse the common streets.
Rough quote
“In the latter days there will be 12 women to a man,saying,we will feed and cloth ourselves,just let us have your name.”
I believe that’s Isaiah 4:1, for those who are interested. And well-observed.
Well, it’s mostly recent history I concern myself with, or do you think the Republican Party of today is similar to the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln? And do you think it made sense to start those two wars? It’s not like they wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t have enough volunteers, it just makes it far easier politically, especially with the backdrop of September 11th. Also you are probably familiar with the stop-loss policy? If they just force you to extend your contract, are you really still a volunteer?
Keyster:
‘That’s a Leftist/MRA myth’
Except for the MRA part, I agree. I don’t know how CNN puts Wesley Clark on to denounce ‘warmongering’ with a straight face. LOL, where were all the ‘mass graves’ in Kosovo? Or, better still, asking how he lost his command in NATO—i.e. when his own officers mutinied against his orders to the attack the Russian Army that was defending the Serbian border? LOL
And let’s not leave out our current Hope-and-Change Guy. I doubt the Libyans are convinced about his intentions not to get us involved in any more ‘overseas adventures’ LOL
The BBC reported yesterday that Russia and China, along with six other Central Asian countries who form a mutual defence league held a summit with Afghan President Karzai. Afghanistan is planning to join this league as soon as America pulls out. Pakistan is considering joining, citing Obama’s reneging on his promises to stop the drone attacks on Pakistani territory as a reason.
Meistergedanken:
You’re right; the court decision was a great victory for men; and the fact that the feminist media has been silent about it shows that.
Beyond the political context though, I hope it wakes men up to the larger social importance. American women have reached such a low state that ‘affection’ has be legally defined for them and ‘love’ measured in terms of financial collateral.
State run Child Support…..err, Chalimony is a total and complete SCAM on the American Family since they care NOTHING about “visitation violations”……….they just want that FUCKING money since once they get it………….Big Daddy Fed sends funds back to the state….which in turn generates MILLIONS of dollars for state budgets……”best interest of the child” MY ASS…………More like, Fuck you pay me………we have single baby mama’s and their new boyfriends to support on your dime.
Well put, that is exaclty right. Since when does a woman get punished for visitation violation? Never, and they know IT. The judges allow it. Transfer of wealth and there is nothing you can do about it.
Get a vasectomy, don’t get duped!
Slwerner;
What struck me about that article was the language the article used. Somehow, I don’t recall judges ever ‘reluctantly opening the door’ or warning ‘caution about bringing such cases’ in say, sexual harassment or rape charges.
Good to see Paul Pfeiffer is a judge now. I wonder what Kevin and Wayne Arnold are up to these days.
Eric wrote: “…the court decision was a great victory for men; and the fact that the feminist media has been silent about it shows that. ”
Interesting bit of backstory: I only learned about this ruling when I read about in a weekly, local, FREE “alternative” paper – not from my informative local public radio station [which prides itself on covering state politics], the local mainstream newspaper or the various news programs on local television. And the only reason the article was printed at all was because it permitted the author to use a snarky title to the effect of “Supreme Court Says Woman’s Love Is Worthless” – supposedly especially ironic coming, as it did, on the heels of Valentine’s Day. I was probably the only reader of that progressive rag who grasped the truth: that had the woman won her case, the Court would actually be proclaiming that the MAN’s love was worthless. A web search revealed the story had only gotten to a handful of law website’s of Ohio professors who specialized in family law, etc. Pathetic.
Well in this case, the father still has to prove that the women knowingly defrauded him. That is very hard to prove, although her requesting a paternity test to keep him from getting custody is a huge hit with the clue-by-four.
It would be very sensible to demand proof of paternity to get the father named on the birth certificate.
Meistergedanken;
Keep a close eye on those law professors’ websites. If experience is any guide, the case might just as quietly get pushed along into a federal appeals court.
“IOW if you don’t want to get “shot to bits”, nobody forced you to join, so don’t. “Manning-up” is voluntary.”
Volunteering to sacrifice your life and limbs for a bunch of Iron Age tribesman, whose idea of freedom is the freedom to stone rape victims to death for adultery, is not manning up.
Keyster
Stay on point no matter what. Maybe some of the Republican types are waking up to the beta chump thing. The catholic church has a pope that seems to be on the red pill. When we have MRA’s that will engage those two groups and help guide their platforms well will have a conventional force to carry on after the guerilla tactics of the MRM have weakened the beaste.
Good news on the article.
The Grizwell cartoon which appears in many newspapers around North America gets it. Supposed to be humour but it is truthful.
http://www.gocomics.com/thegrizzwells/2012/06/02
As a left leaning supporter of mens right and anti feminist, I can easily agree and acknowledge that Republicans are better for mens rights.
unfortunately they are also the party of corporatism, deregulation, and religious nuts.
Its a quandry.
I can not forget that it was Bush who drove this countries economy into the ground as wella s starting two failed wars and crony capitalism that has nearly sunk our economy, and for which we will be paying dearly for for decades.
Democrats on the other hand have become the party of manginas and women..and have completely abandoned the working class as well.
A pox on both their houses.
Two parties equally corrupt, equally bereft of honor as well as brains.
There will always be some bitch of a man enamoured of a fixed political system, and whom not being able to see within and beyond it clearly enough, assumes other men to be of similar limitation as himself.
No sooner does such ineducable dupe happen upon superiors of mind or imagination to himself, than he boldly quips, “but politics is not for you, if you don’t see it like I do … Surely such political formation as I’ve chosen is better for us all”
Former Pennsylvania Republican Senator sentenced to 2.5-10 yrs in prison
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/06/05/244782/pennsylvania-senator-sentenced-yrs-prison/
“In effect, an [unmarried] cohabitating woman can no longer legally claim that she is entitled to half your stuff because she was intimate with you, shared her feelings and occasionally boiled you an egg for breakfast. ”
I’d say that will *only* apply in light of having a contract like Ormsby’s. In absence of such a contract, the “contract” that will apply will either be our currently shitty marriage contract or, whatever co-habitation regulations your local man hating feminists have had enacted.
At any rate, what society is headed towards is the requirement that every potential relationship be negotiated, reviewed and put under contract before the two get together.
Norm, I like that comic. I thought this comment from there was worth posting here:
BigChiefDesoto said, 4 days ago
A friend of mine from Latvia back in the late 1960s said there was a sarcastic joke going around Europe that went something like:
Two guys met on the street, and after some greetings and discussion one of them said:
“And how is your daughter?”
“Great! She married an American, you know. And how is your son?”
“Terrible! He married an American, too!”
The good news is that this is prostitution made legal. The bad news is that is is WAY WAY over priced!
We have similar “common law marriage” laws here in Australia. Live with a “partner” for some period of time (6 months to 2 years it seems, I can’t find an exact number) and you are consider “defacto” married and splitting up now entitles each party to a share of the assets etc.
This has always struck me as lunacy. If you are not prepared to “sign on the dotted line” and get married then why should the privileges and risks of marriage be applied to you?
“When asked by the court if Ms. Williams had given up “anything of value” that merited consideration for the contract, she replied, “I didn’t pay him anything, no. I thought what was of value was the fact that we were sharing all sorts of things. He had my love.””
So ends any notion that it is men who commodity women and women’s sexuality. It was she who saw her “love” as a thing to be bartered.
It is legally no different than a written agreement. And it is just as binding. Proving it is the hard part.
even indifference is preferable to the creeping horrors of liberal activism in America’s courtrooms.
*******************
absolutely
The good news is that this is prostitution made legal. The bad news is that is is WAY WAY over priced!
***********
feminists have never been against prostitution
they’ve just been against it being cheap
anything that can provide for men what they want from women (or that can substitute for it) cheaper or better than the feminist is willing or able to do is what they don’t like
Art;
‘Proving the women knowingly defrauded him…’
I would say that if paternity is uncertain, though, it would still mean that the woman was having multiple sex partners—and consequently, she couldn’t have known with any certainty who the father actually was when she named him. Either way, it’s still a terrible sign of the times when gender relations have to boil down to these types of legal minutae. Embargo American women and live happily ever after, I say! LOL
“To those who consistently and tediously assert that there is no discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans.”
Republicans:
1) Support more prisons and tougher laws that put more men in prison.
2) Support foreign wars that get more men killed.
3) Have a protective attitude about women and mothers resulting in draconian child support laws against men.
4) Push the legal marriage contract which works against men.
Democrats:
1) Support feminism.
2) Support pro-women positions.
3) Celebrate single motherhood and pander to it.
Both parties stink for men; if you fall into the belief that either party cares about you, you are falling into the divide and conquer trap.
The sooner men abandon notions that either party cares about men’s rights, the better off we will all be, because that lost energy can then be refocused.
GT66;
I think that the Europeans know the score, but seems like American men always have to learn things the hard way.
Memorable Relation: My mother’s side of the family is German and my maternal grandmother was from over there. She always advised us younger males to go ‘back to the old country’ for a real woman and not bother with Amerobitches. So far, I’m the only one following her advice, but even I had to learn the hard way.
But her son, my luckless uncle, also didn’t pay attention to Grandma. He got engaged to blue-eyed blonde American girl and used to joke: ‘See, Mom? Doesn’t she look German at least! LOL.’
They married and within a suspiciously short time-frame my cousin was born. They had a big Oktoberfest-style party for the new boy in the family, but quite a bit of gossip soon started. It seems that the new baby’s dark complexion and features, which appeared somewhat more African than Teutonic, caused some speculation as to whether or not my aunt had taken her engagement vows all that seriously. Of course, they divorced about five years later and my uncle, white knight to the bitter end, still works two jobs to pay alimony and child support.
“Experience keeps a strict school, but fools will learn in no other.”—Benjamin Franklin
@eric
You probably heard about this story of a married German woman who had an affair with a Nigerian man. The woman gave birth to twins; then her and her husband blocked the Nigerian man’s access to the twins. This story is illustrative of everything that is wrong in Western society for men.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20101221-31945.html
I don’t really think it’s a victory. He did after all sign a clear contract. And we all know that she did provide a real “consideration”. Maybe it will weaken the “common law” marriage trap, but all I see it doing is pushing men into “marriage” where the wife owes her husband nothing
Wilson – “I don’t really think it’s a victory. “
Yes, the specifics of the case make it dubious as a general “win” for men, but…
Since the real problem for men in the mis-named Family-Courts has been that their demonstrable legal rights (even those spelled out in pre-nuptual agreements) are routinely tossed aside by judicial whim (white-knighting by old male judges, and pro-women feminist activism by female judges, both on the behalf of women), case like this one DO serve to demonstrate a better course for young men in today’s declining society – DO NOT MARRY, and create contractual agreements detailing the division of finances and property. Keep it out of Family Court by allowing it to be routed through Civil Court, where the actual rule of law is (seemingly) more likely to be upheld (at least it seems to be more gender-blind), and common sense still appears means something – and anything even approaching fairness, equity, and common sense will be better for men than what they could otherwise expect in the Family Courts.
In that regard, “wins” for individual men like Frederick Ormsby can translate into greater freedoms and protections for men in general, provided they are able to learn the lessons that cases like this one do teach.
This is going to be interesting because it’s putting the whole notion of husband as the default father into question. I also don’t know what kind of man would stay with his wife after something like that, it must hurt every day.
WalkinginHell:
I hadn’t heard the story. The sad thing about it is that stories like that are newsworthy in Germany; but they’re everyday occurances here!
Expatting is looking better and better all the time LOL
My thought regarding consideration is that giving up a legal right usually counts as consideration; in the present case, the legal right could have been her right to establish her own residence.
Amanda, only a feminist lawyer could construe a free place to live [as in a fully paid off house] as a burden [consideration]. Wow. I guess you know more than those ignorant Supreme Court justices, huh? Even the dissenting justice didn’t come up with THAT whopper.