Responsa for Bava Batra 292:6

Q. Leah rebelled against her husband A, the son of Mendel Kern. When warned that she might lose her ketubah and the dowry (which she brought in upon her marriage) and that she might be forced to wait for many years for her divorce she threatened, among other things, to go and live among the Gentiles. Since the women of Regensburg were always arrogant in their relations to their husbands and now are even more supercilious than ever, Leah should be dealt with in a manner that would serve as a warning to her haughty sisters. A should be permitted to remarry immediately in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, while Leah should be forced to wait for her divorce for many years. However, Leah should not be left entirely to the mercy of her husband who, after marrying another woman, might demand an exorbitant sum for Leah's divorce, or might refuse to divorce her altogether. We, therefore, leave it to you to decide upon a proper punishment for Leah.
A. In order to curtail the possibility of Jewish women turning to mischief, and in order that people might not say: "This one is A's wife and this one his paramour", we should not permit the husband to remarry before he divorces his rebellious wife. Therefore, A should receive a limited amount of money and give Leah her divorce, or, he should give Leah a divorce on condition that the divorce become valid (from now and) twelve months, or two years, after date. After the delivery of such a conditional divorce, A may be permitted to remarry immediately. If, however, Leah had good reason to detest her husband, she should be dealt with more leniently. Therefore, you should use your judgment in determining the severity with which Leah is to be punished.
SOURCES: Pr. 946; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 161b.

Q. In the presence of witnesses Leah asked A to betroth her. While she was in a yard not owned by her, A threw a ring into her lap for the purpose of betrothal. The witnesses, although they saw Leah shake her dresses in order to brush the ring away, did not see whether or not the ring actually fell into her lap. Does Leah need a divorce from A?
A. Had the witnesses seen the ring fall into Leah's lap, she would need a divorce in spite of her claim that she never intended to become A's wife and that she was joking when she asked him to betroth her. For we would, then, be concerned only with facts and not with her thoughts and unexpressed intentions. But, since the witnesses did not see the ring fall into Leah's lap, and the yard where the incident took place did not belong to Leah, she needs no divorce, for no betrothal took place. R. Meir adds: If my teachers agree with my decision, all will be well. But if they do not agree I shall subscribe to whatever they decide to do. However, I should prefer not to be strict in this matter and not to require Leah to obtain a divorce, lest A become rebellious and refuse to divorce her, and lest he travel to a distant land and thus render it impossible for the unfortunate woman ever to marry again.
This Responsum is addressed to: "My teacher Rabbi Haim and his court."
SOURCES: Pr. 993: Mord. Git. 451; ibid. Kid. 548: Tesh. Maim. to Nashim. 1.