ATLANTA (Legal Newsline) - The agreement a couple signed after breaking off their engagement may not be an enforceable contract, a Georgia appeals court ruled, breathing new life into a lawsuit by the would-be bride and her parents seeking the return of wedding gifts and expenses from her former fiancé.
Thomas Boutros and Sarah Sidhom, both members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, were engaged in 2017 after dating several months. They had an engagement party and bridal shower that brought them numerous gifts Boutros stored at a home he had recently purchased. As part of the engagement, they signed a Church-approved agreement that Boutrous would return his engagement ring and any gifts if he broke off the engagement, and Sarah would do the same if she were the one who ended things.
The two did break up and Boutrous admitted he initiated the split, after his fiancée imposed conditions and gave him ultimatums. But the two signed a second agreement, in front of three witnesses, declaring they had “completed all settlements with each other” and neither had a claim against the other “before civil court nor other entities.”
Sidhom and her parents sued anyway, citing the earlier agreement. Boutrous allegedly gave back the engagement ring and wedding bands but kept the gifts at his house. The Sidhoms sought the return of the gifts plus attorneys’ fees and expenses.
A trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the language in the second agreement was unambiguous. But the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, saying there was a question of fact as to whether Sidhom and Boutrous mutually assented to the contract. In an affidavit, Sidhom said Boutros told her he would return the gifts before they signed the agreement, but then reneged on his promise. Although her affidavit doesn’t change the terms of the agreement, the appeals court ruled, it does supply enough evidence to require a judge or jury to determine if the contract is valid.
Judge Verda Colvin dissented, saying the second agreement was unambiguous and ordinary principles of contract formation should apply. Sishom would only have a case if she was “somehow deprived of the capacity to read and assent to the revocation agreement itself.”
“The written expression of these parties’ intent to settle is unequivocal, and there is no evidence that this plaintiff was fraudulently prevented from reading the contract,” Judge Colvin concluded.