I'm stammeringly speechless.

The defense lawyer's closing argument was correct.

The judge's instructions were misleading.

"Will you marry me?" "Yes, I would love to" connotes nothing as far as a fiscal contract for goods, services, or labor. "Will you clean my house?" "Yes, I would love to" doesn't either...without the words "Will you clean my house for $200 dollars on Tuesday?" "I will be there."

And doesn't State Law depict 'marriage' as a religious institution only? If they had filled out a marriage/civil license to marry, and then he breached that, well, maybe there's a case for the State to bring against him for breach, but this case has me stumped.

I would LOVE to hear from the many attorneys who read the Beehive, cuz this just stinks of bad law and horrible precedent.

I'm (slightly) familiar with this scenario (which is a massive understatement,) from a different angle.

I think this should be a good wake up call.
Men (and women) really need to be accountable for what they say and do...

In reality, when you ask someone to marry you, several things are going on:
-Both parties have to believe that the other has been their 'real self.'
-Both parties have to (honestly) be honest with themselves and know themselves quite well.
-There is 'trust' and 'maturity,'
--that goes well past: 'I want you because you make me feel good.'

And when questions are asked, and answers are given? It IS a contract, -but more one of honor, ethics, and love, (which exceeds 'legal,' -but it exceeds (only AFTER fulfillng the legal.)

It's somebody giving their WORD (and if their word is worth anything, than they're word can be trusted, ---that includes taking full culpability and making it 'right' when their word fails.
--otherwise they have no honor, and are worth NOTHING in terms of respect (note that.)

So often anymore people can't be bothered with knowing know who they are,
have little clue as to what marriage is,
and (for whatever reasons) do not know their limits, nor even how to communicate with each other in a commitment of this nature.

(It is quite accurate to say that 'nobody,' knows who they're marrying until they actually marry them, (even if they've been 'living together.')
-But way before then,
there is a lot of soul searching, honesty, and growing up that has to happen, --otherwise a ton of damage can occur.

Bottom line?,
---when folks ask these questions, and folks give these answers,
---and then build on those trusts and start planning?,
-it is an 'unsaid agreement,' that both know what they're getting into,
---and when you trust someone to know who and what they are in answering?
You're basically at their mercy.
-And in such a situation mercy had best be mutual, because when you truly LOVE someone, you have no defense against them, -only trust IN them and that they're being straight with you.

That she has been (somewhat) reimbursed for her losses?
Good.

The girl was (severly) let down, her life has been changed radically, in a lot of major and tangible (as well as intangible) ways and money is a small recompense.

That she got to keep the ring?
--Since she was the one who did not break it off? --sure,
--as an engagement ring is a carryover and seen as a 'non-refundable' symbol of the man 'taking a woman off the market,' (so to speak,) and she completely going through the throes (internally, externally,) of her being reidentified as now being 'his' wife.
--If he kills the deal? (again,) the ring is a tiny price to pay for someone's time, trust, and heart.
The ring literally symbolizes the price of the woman's honor, and to her means a promise to be fulfilled, belief, and hope,
(where, too often? the guy treats it as a way of 'warding off other guys,' and establishing rights to regular 'booty-calls.')
(totally different meanings of the same article, please notice.)

These days?
It's sad.
People go into situations like this (not only,) not knowing who they are (and if they're really ready,)
--but also with a mindset of 'how can I get what I want out of this, WHILE being the least 'responsible,' (legally, etc.)

-It casts the word 'trust,' into the same light as 'don't be a sucker,'
-and reduces what (should) grow to be a lifelong relationship (deeper than any other,)
into a series of 'statements that can be redifined to retain material wealth,'
(while you loose everything that really matters in the process.)

Even in the best of circumstances, things sometimes just 'don't work out,' which is human and forgivable.

-but it NEVER will work out unless both people completely abandon this 'damage control,' mentality,
-and just love each other,
-and be straight with each other, and themselves, to begin with.