|
PITTSBURGH--A state Supreme Court Justice given to writing opinions in rhyme was criticized by two fellow justices who said his style reflected poorly on the court. Seven stanzas from Justice J. Michael Eakin and complaints about them from Chief Justice Stephen A Zappala and Justice Ralph Cappy, appeared in a decision Wednesday involving a dispute concerning a prenuptial agreement. Susan Porreco's lawsuit claims the agreement she signed with Louis Porreco should have been voided because he allegedly misrepresented the engagement ring as a diamond. In his opinion, Eakin wrote rhymes including: "A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth twenty-one grand" "The filing of an opinion that expreses itself in rhyme reflects poorly on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," Zappala wrote. "No matter addressed by this court is frivolous." Cappy wrote that judges have the right to express themselves, but expressed concern about "the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of this Court is reduced to rhyme." Eakin, through his secretary, said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on what Zappala and Cappy wrote. In Wednesday's decision, the Supreme Court overruled a trial court that agreed with Susan Porreco that the prenuptial agreement was fraudulent. The high court sent the case back saying Porreco could have had the ring appraised before signing the agreement. Eakin was among the judges dissenting in the 4-2 decision. |
|
Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 571 Pa. 61 (Pa., 2002) A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth twenty-one grand. Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied on his claim of value, she was not justified for she should have appraised it; and surely she could have, but the question is whether a bride-to-be would have. The realities of the parties control the equation, and here they're not comparable in sophistication; the reasonableness of her reliance we just cannot gauge with a yardstick of equal experience and age. This must be remembered when applying the test by which the "reasonable fiancée" is assessed. She was 19, he was nearly 30 years older; was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her? Given their history and Pygmalion relation, I find her reliance was with justification. Given his accomplishment and given her youth, was it unjustifiable for her to think he told the truth? Or for every prenuptial, is it now a must that you treat your betrothed with presumptive mistrust? Do we mean reliance on your beloved's representation is not justifiable, absent third party verification? Love, not suspicion, is the underlying foundation of parties entering the marital relation; mistrust is not required, and should not be made a priority. Accordingly, I must depart from the reasoning of the majority. |