Breaking up with someone via text is probably the most cowardly way to end a relationship. But for one Buffalo, New York woman, her ex-fiancé’s decision to cut ties with her through text is paying big dividends.
Christa Clark was shocked on July 1, 2012 when she received a text message from fiancé Lou Billitier calling off their marriage.
“You’re doing this through text message????” she replied.
Billitier, a wealthy business owner, said he would reimburse Clark for any money she’d spent on wedding preparations. He also said he’d let her keep her $53,000 engagement ring as a “parting gift.”
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
A few weeks later, Billitier was angry that Clark was still in contact with his family. He then told her he was considering taking back the expensive ring.
“Keep it up, and I will take back the ring as well,” he threatened. His last message to Clark said “You by law have to give it back. You’re nowhere near the person I thought you were. You don’t deserve it.”
Clark, not willing to give up the ring, met Billitier in court to settle the issue. The judge ruled that since Billitier called the ring a gift, he is not legally allowed to later revoke that gift and demand it back.
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
“Many gifts are given for reasons that sour with the passage of time,” Judge Russell Buscaglia wrote in his ruling. “Unfortunately, the gift law does not allow a donor to recover or revoke…a gift simply because his or her reasons for giving it have soured. Once a gift is given, it is irrevocable.”
Billitier claims he was being sarcastic when he referred to the ring as a parting gift.
“I was being sarcastic, like a game show host – you get a parting gift,” he said.
Judge Buscaglia didn’t buy that logic. Clark’s attorney, meanwhile, said the court’s ruling “speaks for itself.”