50 Cent Made No Promise to Pay More Than 50 Cent to Ex-Girlfriend.

The first sentence of the statement of facts in Tompkins v. Jackson, Index No. 104745/2008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2009), reveals that the parties’ relationship was unwise in its conception: “[t]he parties began dating in 1995, when [the] plaintiff was in college and [the] defendant was recently paroled and unemployed.” The “defendant” is Curtis Jackson, a.k.a. “50 Cent,” the international rap music star.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that when she was dating 50 Cent he promised he would “take care of her” if he ever made it big in the music business. 50 Cent bought a house for her to live in and financially supported her for a number of years while his career took off, but he never married her and also allegedly beat her up from time to time. Hmm, something about that “parolee” background should have tipped her off.

In any event, the plaintiff alleged the parties had entered into an oral contract for 50 Cent to give her lifetime financial support and to have her share 50-50 in his future music business profits. The court granted 50 Cent summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because the promise he would “take care of her” was too vague regarding whether he was referring to financial or emotional needs and, if financial, for how much and how long.

The court also granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for quantum meruit and her claim that 50 Cent had promised to buy her a house, based on the Statute of Frauds. The court held that an e-mail from 50 Cent to the plaintiff in which he allegedly promised to give her the house was not a sufficient enough writing to avoid the statute because the e-mail was a mere agreement to agree that did not specify which house he was referring to. Finally, after dismissing some other claims, the court held that the plaintiff could not prove any 50-50 joint venture because the plaintiff’s evidence did not show that she ever agreed to share in any losses.

The true moral of the story is that one should not date an unemployed parolee and expect to eventually share in riches. It is a well-known fact that the ratio of destitute former unemployed parolees to wealthy former unemployed parolees is exactly 6,224,731.62 to 1. It’s wiser just to save 50 cents at a time.