Legal News

Ex-Son-in-Law Denies Agreement to be Faithful to Wife

By Matthew Heller, Editor

A man whose former father-in-law sued him for the costs of his wedding after he cheated on his wife is arguing that the first-of-its-kind case would ?open the door to endless spurious claims? by vengeful parents.

Stephen Levy's marriage to the daughter of Chicago attorney Carey M. Stein lasted only 17 months. Stein didn't take the breakup well, suing Levy in March 2010 for breaching an oral agreement to be faithful to his daughter if he footed the bill for the couple's wedding.

Levy reneged on the deal by having ?unprotected sexual activity? with prostitutes in sex clubs, even contracting ?one or more sexually transmitted diseases? from these illicit encounters, Stein said in his complaint.

The suit seeks breach-of-contract damages for more than $75,000 in wedding costs and $1 million in punitive damages for fraud. But Levy argues in a motion to dismiss that the alleged oral contract is unenforceable and ?contrary to public policy.?

?It is all too easy,? he says,

for a parent or relative to make hindsight assertions that they contributed to the cost of a  weddings or gave wedding gifts in reliance on oral assurances that a groom or bride would be loving, protective, caring, and faithful. Such protestations of love are almost universal prior to marriage. The law should not permit family members to manufacture, as has been done in this case, a supposed oral ?contract? of this nature.

Levy also cites a broken engagement case in which the Ohio Supreme Court said, ?'Many gifts are made for reasons that sour with the passage of time.' Unfortunately, gift law does not allow a donor to recover/revoke an inter vivos gift simply because his or her reasons for giving it have  'soured.'? Cooper v. Smith, 800 N.E.2d 372 (2003).

There is certainly no precedent for a suit based on marital fidelity. Stein, a name partner at Ashman & Stein in Chicago, alleged that Levy promised to repay the wedding costs if he ?ever did anything so horrible to Plaintiff's daughter during the first two years of marriage that it would cause the marriage to fail.?

But Levy notes that, under Illinois' ?statute of frauds,? a contract must be in writing if it ?is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof.? ?Since the alleged contract required Levy to honor his alleged promises for two years, it is unenforceable,? he says.

Even if the statute of frauds somehow doesn't apply, Levy's public policy argument should be enough to get the case dismissed. ?The supposed contract would give Stein a financial interest in the success of the marital relationship of his daughter and Levy, and in the performance of their marital duties,? he says. ?These are obligations between husband and wife, not between a spouse and a parent-in-law.?

?Stein's oral contract theory,? he continues, ?would open the door to endless spurious claims by  parents and other close relatives.

Stein has amended his original complaint to include a claim for defamation, citing a statement about the case by Levy's attorney. ?He's clearly upset with his former son-in-law and has the power to exact revenge by virtue of his privilege to practice law,? the lawyer told a reporter.

?[M]any courts have recognized that aggressive litigation ? particularly where punitive damages are sought ? is a socially acceptable sublimation of the desire to exact revenge,? Levy says in his motion to dismiss.

By Matthew Heller
On Point

Full post as published by On Point News on February 03, 2011 (boomark / email).