Reply #54: His liability is based upon her reasonable reliance on his promise & her changing positions ...

[TexasObserver]

This is a case about inducing a person to materially change their economic position by reasonably relying upon the representations of another. His liability could exist without any promise of marriage, without any broken engagement. If he had simply said "if you'll quit working and live with me, I'll pay for you to live well," he'd still be liable, because she changed her position based upon his representation, she incurred economic losses because he failed to do as he represented, and she was reasonable in relying upon his representation.

If the evidence showed that she had just met this guy, she would have a tough time proving her reliance on his representations was reasonable. But in this case, where they had been a couple five years, she had every reason to rely upon his representations.

To me, the only real issue is whether the damages are justifiable under the law and evidence. The judge will decide that, and I'll look forward to seeing that outcome.

Her case is more compelling as presented in this article than in the original article. The five years they were together really matters. It provides the basis for a determination that she was reasonable in believing his promises of taking care of her.

Based upon the facts in the article you linked, I think she'll get more than the $25,000 I originally had supposed she might end up with. She probably does have more provable damages than that, although I doubt the $150,000 will pass muster. We'll see when the judge enters a judgment.