Court Fines Man $50,000.00 for Breaking Up With Girlfriend


In an example of Government reaching too far into the lives of private citizens, a man has actually been ordered by a court to pay $50,000.00 to his ex-girlfriend for breaking up with her. Yes, this is a true story! And yes, this happened in America!

Yahoo News reports:

On Dec. 23, 2004, Christopher Ned Kelley, who works in IT, gave Melissa Cooper a ring valued at about $10,000, a court document states; she accepted and the two moved to a new home. Since 2000, Kelly, had lived with Cooper, who also had a child with him, the filing says.

She says she left her job at his request to stay home and raise their child and her child from a previous relationship, according to a court document.

As his defense, Kelley claimed he never asked Cooper to marry him. The couple was merely participating in cohabitation, like tens of thousands of other couples in America, particularly from Generation-X, the first generation in U.S. history to prefer cohabitation in mass numbers over traditional marriage. Many Gen-X’ers have chosen co-habitation over traditional marriage because they watched their parents from the Baby Boomer generation fail miserably at marriage and rack up huge legal expenses to end said failed marriages, while destroying their (the Gen-X kids) lives in the process.

So, it appears that the Government has found a way to weasel into the private lives of those who have done all they could to keep them out. In this case, Yahoo reports that the court has ordered Kelley to pay Cooper $43,500 in damages and attorney fees of $6,500. They are claiming this on “breach of contract” because she says that he said he’d marry her at some point, but did not.

The decision to co-habitate was obviously mutual in this case or it wouldn’t have happened. Any “time away from developing a personal career” or “monies vested in joint property” etc. were personal decisions made by both parties, yet at the time of the break up, the courts decided they’d get involved and say who got what.

But they weren’t married!

The point of this article is to show how over-reaching the courts and the Government have gotten. What about other couples who co-habitate and produce children and then break up and go their separate ways, but who have been living off of welfare and handouts instead of money earned through hard work, such as Kelley? Will the courts order them to repay money to the welfare system?

This story is so wrong on so many levels. What part of our private lives can we keep Government out of? It seems there may be none left.

The couple featured in this story resided in Georgia, a traditionally “states rights” supporting state that wouldn’t have acted in such a fashion a generation ago. It appears nowhere in America is safe from big Government.

Follow The Free Patriot contributor and Iraq War veteran Kevin E Lake on Facebook and read more news and stories on The Free Patriot.

  • Deborah Tucker

    Actually, years ago when a man decided not to honor a marriage proposal, he paid money to her family and she also kept the engagement ring. In this case, they shared everything. In breaking up she deserves the money to help support their child together. Also, he was supporting her so now he had to keep her in the style she had become use too until she could start work again.

  • John Mitchell

    Ha Ha! If people want to do this, then they deserve what’s coming to them.

  • Guest

    Can’t handle the truth!

  • Jackie Wood

    They had a child together and bought a house together. If she didn’t get his money this particular way, she would have gotten it another way…. like in a home buy out or child support..

  • Dan Matchik

    can the man afford it ? does he have arrangements to support his child? whose fault was the breakup ? who supports her other child ? Maybe we are only hearing part of this ! I have seen judges that should be removed from the bench. Too many have nobody to make sure judges are fair, reasonable and, within the law ! There are women that get the shaft in relationships but, there are also men that get shafted by women !

  • Roberta Markovich

    What a crazy world you live in.

  • Larry

    How about reporting on the whole story. He admits giving her the ring, admits to having her quite her job and then cheats on her twice. During the hearing he claimed it he was paying her for sexual favors not promising to marry her.
    The piece of crap needed to be taken for a whole lot more than 50k.

  • Nick Marra

    boy she’s ugly…. i would have broke up with her too

  • Independent Tom

    Obamy promised me I would save $2500 per year on my health insurance. Everyone sue that liar!!!

  • Truelitistnot

    Solution. Don’t have a girlfriend. Don’t talk to women. Don’t have anything to do with them if they wish to go down this road. Else move to another country and date women somewhere else.

  • James Birchfield

    I would have told the court that I’d marry her before I would have paid her a dime. Then make her life miserable until she ran off with her next victim.

  • Bill Berger

    I’d be tempted to spend that $50G on a hitman, two for the price of one, lol.

  • OvidiuGOA

    this site has some very biased news reporting, almost all stories seem to lack proper context or have important missing information

  • Lori C

    Pretty sure the issue here is the state sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong! Sure the Guy should pay child support on HIS child but the woman can go back to work. I didn’t see that it said he forced her to quit her job! Nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes!!! She needs to put on her big girl panties and deal with it!!!!! This is the epitome of frivolous law suits!

  • bottomfeeder

    says every female in the world, hell no he shouldnt have to give a dime to her unless they have a kid togeather,and then child support should happen…

  • Ken Con Reeves

    Way more to the story than you are “reporting”… Great to see a fellow vet do such great research. But hey, I understand. Your story has to appear appealing to your audiance who hates the over powering governement that is so deep in everyones business and NOW, the court has FINALLY found a way to get more control over the masses.

  • ohthehugemanatee

    What was stopping her from working again? I am Mom to 4, now grown sons. I worked outside the home AND homeschooled them. As a woman, I am appalled at the nonsense that some women try to get away with. As the Mom to boys, I am equally ashamed of some of the things my gender has done to trap men. Life is not fair and things don’t always work out as we dreamed they would be. This lady needs to get over it.

  • justinian1974

    I can just imagine all the fun the biased court would have had with this guy, if he were actually married to her?

  • Lew

    Kevin Lake. Since this was a public trial, please get the filing names so I can read the court transcript. Something here seems a bit out out of sorts.

  • Chopper

    Find the attorney’s to file a class action law suit I’m sure you could get a few citizens to file with you

  • Lew

    Ok, here is the “dope” from Court Reporter. As I suspected, there was more to this story than reported…

    (CN) – A Georgia man who left his fiancee for another woman must pay $50,000 for breaching his promise to marry her, the state appeals court ruled.

    Melissa Cooper lived with Christopher Ned Kelley in 2000 and the couple had a child together. In 2004, Kelley proposed and gave her a ring valued at approximately $10,000. When Cooper later
    discovered that Kelley had been seeing another woman, however, dating back to before the proposal, Kelley pledged to end the relationship and marry Cooper.

    Cooper then learned of Kelley’s relationship with yet another woman in 2011. Kelly told Cooper to move out along with their child and another child from Cooper’s previous relationship.
    Cooper sued Kelley for a variety of claims. After the issues of paternity and child support were settled, she continued with her claims of fraud and breach of promise to marry. The trial court ruled in Cooper’s favor, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees totaling $50,000.

    Kelley based his subsequent appeal on precedent from the Georgia Supreme Court
    that an unmarried couple living together in a sexual union is part of a meretricious relationship.
    He said the promise to marry was part of a meretricious relationship and was unenforceable.
    Merriam Webster defines meretricious as “having the nature of prostitution.”

    The state Court of Appeals noted on Nov. 22 that “the meretricious relationship defense typically is asserted as a defense to a claim of breach of a financial agreement or arrangement between two parties when the agreement is seen as being in exchange for one party’s agreement to
    cohabit with the other party and provide sexual relations.”

    Such a defense has been held inapplicable, however, “where the object of the contract is not illegal or against public policy, but where the illegality or immorality is only collateral or remotely connected to the contract,” precedent states.

    The court’s divided seven-judge panel affirmed the ruling for Cooper.

    “The object of such a promise is not illegal or against public policy. In Georgia, the legislature has specifically announced that ‘marriage is encouraged by the law,'” Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote for the majority.

    “Kelley has not cited any cases, nor has our research uncovered one, where the meretricious relationship defense was asserted or upheld in response to a claim of breach of promise to marry,” she added. “We therefore conclude that the fact that the parties lived together both before and after the marriage proposal is only collateral to the promise to marry.”

    On the issue of fraud, the panel emphasized Kelley’s admission: “I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring” and “I never said the words ‘will you marry me’ to her.”

    “This testimony, when juxtaposed with Cooper’s testimony about the proposal and her acceptance, can be construed as an admission that Kelley never intended to marry Cooper,” Branch wrote.

    The majority also upheld the amount of damages. “Cooper testified that she was devastated by Kelley’s fraud and breach of promise to marry and that she quit her job to raise the couple’s
    children in reliance on the promise,” Branch wrote.

    Chief Judge Herbert Phipps delivered a partially dissenting opinion, joined by Judge John Ellington.
    “The evidence did not show that Kelley lacked the intent to perform at the time he proposed to Cooper,” Phipps wrote. “Notably, Cooper admitted that there was a time after the proposal when she too had a ‘relationship’ with someone else. A finding of fraud cannot be sustained
    upon these facts, and in my view, Kelley is entitled to a new trial on
    that claim.”

  • GrayBeard

    AKA common law marriage, he should of taken care of his commitment. Problem here is lack of moral fortitude not government overreach. Suprized this was worthy of posting on here?

  • Jared

    Breach of contract? So there is written evidence of his saying that he would marry this person? Was it witnessed by anybody at the time it was stated? Have those witnesses signed a document stating they heard and witness the signing of a document? IS there a yes here. Even if he said may be we will marry one day, this is NOT a legal and binding agreement. If however there is documented evidence that states he WILL marry her, that is a contract. Yes, some verbal agreements are legally binding, but not ALL. What was the cause of the break up, did SHE do anything that would facilitate the ending of the relationship, did she keep a clean house, were the children or specifically HIS child cared for to the very best of ability. Did she at any time put the child in danger. Breach of contract works BOTH ways. After all SHE accepted HIS ring, therefore she accepts a contractual agreement to behave as a WIFE should behave and KEEP THE HOME as a WIFE SHOULD.

  • Bub

    should have checked on the rules for common-law marriage in that state!

  • Dick Fitzwell

    It’s the old “Palimony” trick. It happened to Lee Marvin way back when. I think it’s bullshit myself!

  • Tim

    Your a moron, he shouldn’t have to pay shit, other than child support.

  • jonathondf

    It would be great if the court looked at all “people”, as people, women do the same thing this guy did and worse, and the court usually sides with the woman.

  • John Miles

    no way in hell!

  • Adam Daniel Buttons

    Its called common law marriage and what has happened here is palimony. This is not new. If he had a home and a kid and supported her then he is responsible. I feel that in situations like this he should of stepped up and married her its like she was good enough to have his kid but not his name.. Thats what the problems are no commitment and honor to god and the institution of marriage. We live in upside times and a downward spiraling world may god have mercy on our souls….

  • Favi Guiles

    In many states, there is still a concept known as common-law marriage. Two people live together as a couple and are then legally considered to be married. Sounds like he took her for a ride by promising something he never intended to honor. Good for her for looking out for herself and her child. Also, people “co-habit” — they don’t cohabitate. Use your spell check, author!!

  • Favi Guiles

    He did not promise this! Read the actual wording about tax credits relating to health insurance premiums and income. Regardless of your feelings about him, he is still our President and you should at least use his correct name.

  • Kevin Blankenship

    Exactly Marriage is a social Contract not cohabitation the courts are setting extremely disturbing precedent and are acting arbitrarily!

  • Daniel Burgess

    I would have just killed the bitch

  • Independent Tom

    I give her the same respect the left gave GWB. She also promised if we liked our policies we could keep them. Obamy lied.

  • Independent Tom

    This isn’t a news site, it is blog (famous blogs include,, and that daily kook off site.)

  • obamy sucks!!

    fuck osoma! i mean obamy…. hes a worthless president

  • Leroy Watt

    Screw him AND his stupid Muslim name.

  • TheRuleOfLaw

    Now we know why some people choose to be gay.

  • Joe Salvati

    I am sorry but you are wrong. He did in fact promise premiums would decrease by an average of $2500. I can find multiple quotes from his campaign speeches that said this.

  • Randy T.

    @faviguiles:disqus !!! Kiss your beloved Islamabama’S ass ,,better yet put it farther up his ass since you cannot breath already ,because it is already to far up it to begin with … he may be your president ,but he sure the hell isn’t mine !!!!!!!!

  • Wildcat1957

    Read the article again, Adam. They didn’t have a kid together. He had a child from his previous marriage and she had a child from her’s. If she claimed his name, then it would be common law marriage. It’s like that song; She got the Goldmine and he got the shaft!

  • Rick Story

    Please read the Constitution, Barry cannot be the president because he was not born aa citizen of the United States and he has never been a citizen of the United States. if you want to use his proper name, then call him Barry Soetoro or Berry Hussain. you’re talking without thinking. I’m guessing that you are a liberal socialist communist. The reason I guess that is because of the way you talk. I am using logic and deduction to come to that conclusion. If I am mistaken, then you need to put forth some different evidence.

  • Rick Story

    I agree with your point. One thing that needs to be discussed so is the fact that marriage was founded about 4000 BC by God. Government was not founded in till far later. Why in the world is government involved in marriage?

  • Matt C.

    Or have a vasectomy….

  • Adam

    Actually the article clearly states “their child and her child from a previous relationship” so they did have a child together. Common law marriage does not require her to claim his name either.

  • Erica

    They had a child together so they might as well have been married and they lived together for over 13 years so again they might as well have been married. 50,000 is a bit much if they are poor if not then it sounds right it depends on how much money they had or make each year. I am assuming they had some money so I agree with the judges decision!

  • pat wood

    you “favi guiles” are a stupid obama loving ass kissing idiot. after al those years she knew what she was doing and georgia does NOT reconize common law marriage. the only state that still does is OHIO. and what is with the damn spelling lessons anymore. go ot hell i wil spel any damn wy i want to. screw you bitch.

  • Megan

    The govt got involved because she sued him!! Not because the judge just felt like getting involved! No one is gonna interfere in your break up unless one of you goes to a court house n ask them to get involved.

  • Prosper Egan

    She has crazy eyes.

  • James Moe Morency

    O’brother? O’crap? O’dummy?

  • James Moe Morency

    He said “health insurance for about the price of your cell phone plan!” I don’t know anyone paying 1200.00 dollars a month for a cell phone plan! Keep defending thid moron, he will toss you under the bus as well!

  • roy coleman

    he did save you would save 2500 on health insurance. and he is a liar and a phony you just too dumb to realize it

  • boo


  • Roy

    Yes, he should pay. There is no reason why he shouldn’t – to those who don’t believe in marriage, marriages only fail because people are married, NOT being married isn’t going to make things better – this article is evidence of that. Learn to Love the person you’re with and stick with that person.

  • Fred Fredburger

    Just find a woman you dont like & buy her a house every 10 years. It’s cheaper & you don’t have to put up with her all the time.

  • pam
  • Denver Bob

    You are aware, of course, that any “Couple” that lives together for longer than 12 months in the state of Georgia – is married by “Common Law”….. Therefore whether he stated “Please Marry me”, or not, is irrelevant.

    Further compounded and affirmed by childbirth.

    Just bringing it up because – on the surface, this seemed unjustifiable — but since this has transpired since 2004 – The 12 month limit is moot.

  • DannyE

    You beat me to it!

  • DannyE

    Rent a high class call girl, they are cheaper in the long run and you don’t have to listen to them nag.

  • Maggie Schneider

    Yes, exactly, common law, and no, it is not new. What the hell did he think he was doing, buying her. $10,000 ring, moving in to live with her, then having a child with her. I hate to break it to this Schmuck, they were married in all sense and purpose. Should make them both get a common law divorce as well.

  • Panors77

    Hey…I didn’t read anywhere about how long they were together eh? In my state a “common law marriage” you have to be together at least 7 years or more,etc. My son just narrowly got out of a situation like this albeit no kids involved thank God. House was in his name but she still wanted half of the proceeds from the house sale. She got $6000 only because my son felt he’d end up spending that much on attornies anyway if she tried to sue. She’d lose but he’d end up forever trying to collect after his win.

  • Panors77

    Have to be together at least 7 years in my state to be common law.

  • Maggie Schneider

    Well I read your message and went in search of info, what I found was, Georgia doesn’t recognize common law marriage that occurred after 1997, the common law marriage before that had to be grandfathered in. So no common law for them.

    “Georgia: Only for common-law marriages formed before January 1, 1997 (1996 Georgia Act 1021).”

  • Maggie Schneider

    I agree with your point, but I found this. Georgia only recognizes common law that occurred prior to 1997 and have been grandfathered in.

    “Georgia: Only for common-law marriages formed before January 1, 1997 (1996 Georgia Act 1021).”

  • MrMidstream

    I’m sorry, but if a woman ends her career to stay at home and take care of MY kids, then it is MY responsibility to take care of her and pay her back in the end if her and I aren’t together anymore. This dude sounds like a dead beat who was just trying to get out of a relationship scott free. What a loser. I’d kick his azz. I’m glad he had to pay her back for all the years she took care of his kid.

  • MrMidstream

    You sound like a dead beat dad.

  • Rifleman

    He is due the same respect that was given to George Bush by those who didn’t like having him in office.

  • Jake V

    Kevin Lake, I find your defense of cohabitation patterns by Gen-Xers extremely one-sided and irresponsible. It has no bearing on this case, and it takes away from what is otherwise a good article.

  • Favi Guiles

    He is an American; he was elected the President. You are not using anything resembling logic or intelligence or you would realize that he was, in fact, ELECTED twice. The fact that he is American has been proven over and over again. I am a Liberal, but not a socialist or a communist.

  • Maggie Schneider

    Oops, this was a month ago but I will answer anyhow :) they would have had to start living together over 20 years ago (before 1994) for them to be able to claim common law. I don’t think they were together that long.