My Wife Said What About Me in the Times?

For most of us, sitting down with our Sunday New York Times is a relaxing experience. But for subjects of the "Modern Love" column, it can suddenly turn into a choke-on-my-scone nightmare. For those unlucky few, Double X launched Modern Love Revenge [2], a series of responses written by the subjects of Modern Love columns. Got a lead? E-mail us [3].

When my wife served a complaint upon me in the form of a Modern Love column [4]alleging breaches in our marriage contract, I was not given the opportunity to respond in kind. Allow me to state my case:

Background

On July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff (Lisa) filed a two-count complaint against the Defendant (me), alleging breach of contract and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Here are the undisputed facts: For nearly six months the Defendant meticulously planned a 10-day trip to Israel and Jordan, comprised of first class accommodations, private guides, archeological digs, walking tours of Jerusalem and a special excursion to Petra. The parties arrived in Israel, checked into their five-star hotel and proceeded to the beach to cleanse their bodies of the day’s extensive travel. The parties made it as far as the curb, when the Plaintiff stumbled and broke her foot; their elapsed time in Israel, 90 minutes.

What followed was a mad and fruitless search for crutches, the payment of extensive fees and charges for last minute flights and cancellations, and upon arriving home, her column alleging “hideous behavior” and “failing and refusing to offer aid and comfort.” Stripped of its hyperbole, the complaint lacks a single fact upon which a meritorious claim can be asserted.

Importantly, the Plaintiff is a writer prone to embellishment, overstatement and purely fictionalized accounts of actual events. Take for example the Plaintiff’s identification of her key witness, Elvis Friedman. Elvis is a dog—a border collie mix who lovingly retrieves the Defendant’s paper each morning and adoringly follows him throughout the house. Elvis is otherwise known as “man’s best friend.” Elvis would sooner chew off his own leg than betray the interests of his master.

The Plaintiff Fails to State a Breach of Contract

The basis of the Plaintiff’s complaint is a mutual promise to “love and comfort, in sickness and in health” for a length of time defined as “as long as both [the Defendant and Plaintiff] shall live.” To be sure, the Defendant has never questioned the term of the contract, at least never out loud. The overwhelming weight of legal authority, however, generally regards such limitless terms as “unconscionable,” or “unduly oppressive.” In any case, there could have been no “meeting of the minds” on the length of the contract at the time it was signed, as 25 years ago both the Plaintiff and the Defendant had only one thing on their mind.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s allegations are inherently self-defeating. First, as for her contention that a search for crutches on a Friday afternoon in Israel inexcusably caused the Defendant to seethe with frustration, the court can surely grant that looking for crutches on a Friday afternoon in Israel is like trying to find a beer in Mecca during Ramadan.

Second, the Plaintiff contends that on the $6,000 return flight home, the Defendant, who was seated in the middle row of the middle section in coach, did not take care of the Plaintiff—who was seated in first class enjoying her multiple meals, warm cookies and unlimited beverages. In this instance, the Defendant relies on the well known doctrine of, “are you kidding me?”

Third, the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of preparing “inedible” meals during her weeks of recovery. That said meals were carefully purchased from Whole Foods, and cooking directions precisely followed absolves the Plaintiff of any liability. But even more fatal to the Plaintiff’s assertion is the long-held maxim (scrupulously adhered to by the Defendant even when being served baked celery with cheese), that so long as one is being fed, one must never impugn the skills of the chef.

Fourth, as for simply suggesting that the Plaintiff drive to the doctor with her left foot instead of insisting the Defendant take the day off work to transport her, well, the Defendant still thinks that there was nothing wrong with what was, again, just a suggestion.

Fifth, the Plaintiff asserts the Defendant exhibited “unhelpful” behavior and acts of “negligence” during her period of recovery. By this she means strewn underwear, lifted toilet lids, and empty toilet rolls left in the bathroom in a haphazard manner that could have “de-crutched” the Plaintiff. These conditions not only plainly existed prior to the injury, but were blatant habits that pre-existed the execution of the marriage contract itself.

Finally, as to the originating incident, the Plaintiff claims that when she insisted her foot was broken, the Defendant did not believe her. Instead, he contended that it must be the strap of her sandal snapping. Well, just as a backfire on car can be mistaken for a gunshot, so too, it turns out, can the sudden break of a metatarsal be easily mistaken for the snap of sandal strap. More importantly, the Plaintiff, aware that travel insurance could have been invented for her, assured the Defendant she would routinely purchase said insurance. Thus, when the Plaintiff, sporting a foot that looked like an eggplant, revealed that she had inexplicably failed to purchase the promised coverage, thus costing the Defendant a small fortune, well, who wouldn’t roll an eye, or maybe even two?

The Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The law is well settled that the Plaintiff, having pled a claim for breach of contract, cannot also plead a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But, in the interest of maintaining the underlying contract, particularly those provisions concerning the providing and receiving of love and comfort in sickness and in health for as long as they both shall live, the Defendant knows full well that notwithstanding the law, the facts, or the contradictions in the Plaintiff’s complaint, the only reasonable, rational and logical choice is to take a confessed judgment on the entire complaint.

In other words, however adroit the Defendant may have been in obfuscating the Plaintiff’s allegations, the Defendant concedes that he is totally busted.

Can I have dinner now?