Jilted Bride Sues Groom Over Insanely Expensive Wedding

A Chicago woman is suing her ex-fiancé for dumping her four days before their wedding. She wants $100,000 to cover the wedding, and notes he inflicted “emotional distress” by canceling and engaging in “lewd acts” at his bachelor party.

ABC reports Dominique Buttitta and Vito Salerno got engaged in December 2007 after dating for nine months. They planned to marry on October 2 of this year, but according to the suit, Salerno started telling people the wedding was off in September. When Buttitta confronted him, he denied it, but then he broke up with her two days later.

Legal issues aside, Buttitta’s itemized list of expenses provides a sad snapshot of modern wedding costs. She paid,

$30,000 for the banquet hall, $11,000 on lighting and flowers, $10,000 for an orchestra, $7,550 for a photographer, $5,000 for a wedding dress and accessories, and $1,700 for wedding favors. The expenses include other non-refundable purchases, including a bridesmaid luncheon, bridal shower and a deposit for a wedding planner.

An attorney who isn’t affiliated with the case says that Buttitta actually has a decent shot at winning the case because Illinois is one of several states that have “breach of promise” to marry laws, and she’s mainly asking for money to cover documented expenses. Though, Buttitta is also accusing Salerno of “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” partially because she learned that he “engaged in lewd act, including lap dances with strippers,” during his bachelor party.

This part of Buttitta’s claim seems a little thin, as skeeziness isn’t a crime, but perhaps leaving someone at the altar should be. Promising to spend your life with someone has always been a huge deal, but as the cost of weddings skyrockets, the commitment to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for a party makes things even more serious. No one should be held legally responsible for ending a bad relationship, but if you’ve planned a wedding for two, it doesn’t seem right to leave one person with the check.