[Colbyt]

Some small refund might be in order.

OTOH (on the other hand).

If I were the judge I would like to rule that if he isn't willing to take the wife back there is no need for pictures.

[Jodokast96]

The B&G dancing and her throwing the bouquet on the other hand, are SHOTS that you DO NOT MISS!

In all fairness, it was the last dance, not the first. I don't even recall that being a notable event at any wedding I've been to.

[bossa]

The phrase "only in America" comes to mind here...

[dadipentak]

If I were the judge I would like to rule that if he isn't willing to take the wife back there is no need for pictures.

[Jodokast96]

After seeing her, I think he's the one that got the boot.

[alohadave]

There are shots and there are SHOTS. The bride hugging her grandmother-in-law is a shot that you can miss. Afterall, no one photographer can follow both the bride and the groom around 100% of the time. You can miss aunt Bertha chatting with the wee little ring bearer, etc, etc. The B&G dancing and her throwing the bouquet on the other hand, are SHOTS that you DO NOT MISS! And frankly there is no reason, short of the photographer keeling over with a heart attack, to miss those shots... Period!!!

This ex-groom probably should get something back, but not necessarily all of it, unless he can prove the shots he did get sucked, or they didn't deliver the album or something significant like that. However, I agree the judge should laugh the "new wedding" out of court and possibly charge the guy for part of the studio's legal expenses for defending the frivolous part of this suit.

Mike

There should also be a statute of limitations on things like this. I'm not particularly impressed with my wedding pictures, but I'm not about to pursue anything about it now (especially since they are out of business now, and I wasn't the one who paid for them).

[dadipentak]

I think he's the one that got the boot.

Me too--the guy's undoubtedly a certified jerk.

[magkelly]

Well let's see she's from overseas, Latvia, divorced him in maybe 5 years flat, and left him without a forwarding? Didn't even stick around long enough to keep the green card that being married for that long probably got her? He's apparently still obsessed enough with wedding her to want the photos for the wedding redone, even though he can't even find her?

Most people divorce like that? The first thing they do is cut up the wedding pics. Or at least bury them back in a closet. But no, this guy wants a lot of them redone even though the "bride" likely wouldn't consent to even being there? If you're friendly with an ex generally speaking you stay in the same country and exchange forwarding addresses. Oh there's a lot more to this story all right! I think someone needs to find her and ask her how she feels about this whole thing.

It sounds a bit like one of those mail order bride stories gone terribly wrong...

[JacekPSUr1]

^ exactly my thought. It seems as though the groom is trying to still salvage the marriage in some way - if she could be found and somehow forced to come back to the US for another wedding, he could see her one more time and patch things up. I think he totally lost his mind and is obviously abusing the court system in order to bring back his ex. What a lunatic!

[Jodokast96]

I think he's just looking to make a buck since he's been out of work for 3 years.

[Fontan]

Maybe not. I dunno. :ugh:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[K-9]

It's the couple's own fault for paying $4100, which is way too high. Then again, if the photographer was paid that much, he should have damn well made sure he snapped the bouquet toss.

[MRRiley]

It's the couple's own fault for paying $4100, which is way too high. Then again, if the photographer was paid that much, he should have damn well made sure he snapped the bouquet toss.

$4100 is pretty much average for any experienced wedding photographer... And frankly, when you pay that price, it should come with high expectations of getting all of the importants shots and that (with the exception of shot ruined by dumb-arse guests (a clause I had as well)) that the shots be pretty darn good. Of course if you pay $500, you pretty much take what you get and it's your fault for selecting a bargain basement photographer off of Craigs List.

I agree that the guy is probaly a jerk, but being a jerk does not invalidate a legal claim agaisnt a signed contract... And I don't believe there is or should be a stature of limitations on recovering in civil cases.

Mike

[Jodokast96]

$4100 is pretty much average for any experienced wedding photographer.

And probably cheap considering this is in NYC.

[kyteflyer]

This is the reason why I would not want to shoot weddings. Even though the photographer didn't capture every possible moment, this lawsuit should be thrown out of court. I mean C'mon! This idiot is suing 6 years after the photos were taken. He's not even married to his wife anymore. Typical money hungry wall street thug!

I hope the whole thing gets thrown out of court and it costs him an arm and a leg in court fees.

I would understand if it was within a week of the delivery of the photographs but 6 years later is clearly a money grab. The guy should be kicked out of court on his a$$.