Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Bride-to-be suing runaway groom for $100,000

A former Chicago area bride-to-be is suing her ex-fiance who she claims dumped her just four days before their fall 2010 wedding - and left her on the hook for its $95,000 pricetag. The couple, Dominique A. Buttitta and Vito V. Salerno, got engaged in December 2007 after more than three years of dating, according to the suit filed on Friday in Cook County Circuit Court. When the groom-to-be returned to the Chicago area after temporarily moving to Colorado for a year for work, they began “fully planning” the ceremony and reception.

The bride-to-be, a Hoffman Estates-based attorney, claims she spent more than $95,000 on wedding-related items and services while planning. Expenses included $30,000 to reserve a suburban banquet hall, more than $11,000 on flowers and lighting, $10,000 for an orchestra to perform at the festivities and her $5,000 gown, as well as several other items, according to a list of expenses filed with the suit.



Prior to the wedding date, the groom apparently attended a bachelor party at the Pink Monkey, where he engaged in "flirtatious and amorous acts in public," which included lap dances and other contact with strippers. His whereabouts in the early moring hours until the afternoon after were not known. The suit alleges he never told his fiance about the lewd acts from his party. It also alleges the groom did not see his fiance for several days, acting as if nothing had happened and not detailing where he had been the morning after his bachelor party.

She confronted him after her sister allegedly heard from the man’s co-worker that the wedding was cancelled. He called off the wedding two days later, four days before the planned nuptuals, allegedly saying his feelings had changed when he returned from Colorado more than a year earlier. The woman claims she suffered severe emotional distress in addition to the monetary damages, and that his behaviour “went beyond the bounds of decency,” the suit said. The two-count suit claims breach of promise to marry and intentional infliction

No comments: