Text messaging can be quite the effective tool, allowing people to multitask and accomplish communicating with people in rapid succession, without the hassle of making a single phone call. But, there are limits to what should be communicated via text, and what would more appropriate with a phone call or a face to face discussion.
Christa M. Clark, 38 of Buffalo, New York, got what can only be described as an extremely inappropriate and unexpected text message from her then fiancé, Louis J. Billittier Jr. Mr. Billittier, decided to inform his fiancé that he was breaking off their wedding engagement and ending their relationship via a text message. Ms. Clark, understandably upset, replied to this shocking news, “Your doing this through a text message????.” This could have been the end of it, but after some nasty text exchanges, Mr. Billittier responded, “Plus you get a $50,000 parting ring. Enough for a down payment on a house.” And that was the text which buried him, in the opinion of the Judge, who ruled that she had a legal right to the engagement ring.
Generally, an engagement ring is looked as a conditional gift in most states, meaning that although the recipient of the ring can possess it during the engagement, they are not the lawful owner of the ring, until they meet the condition of becoming married to the giver. As crude as his method of breaking off the engagement was, all Mr. Billittier had to do was inform his fiancé of his intent to break off the engagement, and to immediately request that the ring be returned. But, unfortunately for him, he went further by expressing that she could keep the ring as a “parting gift”, in effect, he removed the condition of following through with the marriage, and gave her the ring as a goodbye “present” and transferring lawful possession and ownership of the ring.
Attorney Richard T. Sullivan, who represents Billittier, argued that his client was being sarcastic, and had no intention to unconditionally gift her the 2.97-carat diamond ring, valued at approximately $53,000. But, the Judge did not agree, and ruled that the text message made it perfectly clear, that Mr. Billittier expressed to Ms. Clark that she could in fact, keep the engagement ring.
This case reminds me of my very first Domestic Violence trial. My client denied any wrong doing and that the “victim” was a habitual liar. He also explained that there is no way she was afraid of him, or that he ever harmed her, because the day after the alleged domestic violence incident, she sent him multiple nude photos of herself via her cell phone. During my cross-examination, I asked about these photos, she vehemently denied she ever sent him anything of the sort, until I showed her the photos sent to my client’s phone. This likely damaged her credibility in the eyes of the judge, those pictures and the denial of their existence, ultimately led to a verdict of not guilty.
Text messaging can certainly benefit the people who know how to effectively and appropriate use it, but it sure can burn someone who fails to think before the send a text or a picture message. Leaving permanent proof of their intentions, acts and desires while in the heat of the moment.
by Michael A. Troiano, Esq.