E-ring tradition and etiquette

[chrono]

I understand that an engagement ring is a promise from one person to another, a contract of sorts, to be committed to each other until the actual marriage takes place. In the event that the engagement is broken, whoever breaks the engagement forfeits their right to keep the ring. What is the etiquette when a heirloom ring is involved? Does it get returned to the family or do the same rules/tradition of whoever breaks the engagement forfeits the ring to the other party?

 

[boerumbiddy]

My understanding was that no matter who broke an engatement off, the ring was returned. However, after my divorce, I kept the ring, with an heirloom stone. (Believe it or not, it was later stolen in a mass break-in of the vault at Provident Loan Society, the famous charity pawnbrokers, which we can put down to karma!)

 

[TooPatient]

I think traditionally, whoever breaks the engagement gives up the ring. Regardless of what the ring is.

That said, I think an heirloom should be returned.

 

[ame]

It was my understanding that legally it goes back to the man when it's broken off prior to marriage EXCEPT with the ring is a family heirloom of the woman's family, in which case the woman's family keeps it. If it's a family heirloom of the man's family and the marriage ends in divorce, usually the ring can be negotiated into the settlement to return.

 

[chrono]

Thank you for your responses. What if the heirloom ring belongs to the man and he breaks the engagement (prior to the marriage)? Is the ring returned or does the lady keep it?

 

[Niel]

In my state, from my understanding it goes like this

Many courts look at an engagement ring as a conditional gift that is given in contemplation of marriage. If there is no marriage, then the engagement ring needs to be returned. (so even if the guy breaks it off, I believe he gets it back)

The courts also have held in these states that the reasoning for no-fault divorces holds for no-fault broken engagements so an engagement ring should always be returned regardless of who decided to call off the engagement.

So I suppose if it was an heirloom from the bride's side, she is the one that gifted it to the cause, so she would get it back. Same on the man's side.

 

[boerumbiddy]

My feeling, based on an ingrained sense of tradition and perhaps some generosity, is that an heirloom ring should be returned in case of a broken engagement on either side. It's not law, mind you, just my feeling. I know how I would feel if, say, my brother lost his mother's ring because he just couldn't go through with a marriage to the wrong person.

(In real life, my brother has been happily married to a lady who wears the small but good ring our late cousin the jeweler found for her in 1978. He also found my mother's engagement ring, which was even smaller and more perfect, in 1943. It was lovely having an honest and knowledgeable jeweler in the family.)

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


I have always thought that the ring goes back to the man, no matter who broke the engagement. An heirloom ring ought to go back to the person who gave it.


Annette

 

[lambskin]

ame is spot on correct. I went to school with a real witch (with a capital B) who was engaged and she broke it off. The ring was her boyfriend's heirloom and before she returned the ring she swithced it with a CZ. I have also heard of jilted brides countersuing the boyfriend for the lost money on the wedding if he was the dumper.

 

[zoebartlett]

I think the ring should be returned to the family it belongs with. I couldn't imagine keeping it if I had broken an engagement. It would belong to my ex-fiance's family. I don't know about the legalities, but morally, I couldn't see keeping it, no matter who ended the engagement.

 

[ame]

ame is spot on correct. I went to school with a real witch (with a capital B) who was engaged and she broke it off. The ring was her boyfriend's heirloom and before she returned the ring she swithced it with a CZ. I have also heard of jilted brides countersuing the boyfriend for the lost money on the wedding if he was the dumper.

WOW. That's ...awful of her.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you for your responses. What if the heirloom ring belongs to the man and he breaks the engagement (prior to the marriage)? Is the ring returned or does the lady keep it?

You would need to speak with an attorney in the state where this happens as this is a matter of State, not Federal law. Tradition has it that if the wedding is called off the ring is returned to the giver. Plenty of stories about bad things, and I have seen a few of them myself, but then, as one of my mentors told me, it is always hard to do good business with bad people.

Wink

 

[kenny]

FWIW, I'm more for thinking for myself than for tradition and etiquette.

I think this attitude is growing, at the expense of tradition and etiquette.

 

[Zizzy]

According to Debretts, the ring should be returned if the engagement is broken before the marriage takes place. There is no requirement for it to be returned upon a divorce.
Personally, even if the law and etiquette books said otherwise, where a ring is an heirloom, I think it should be returned unless it is a divorce after many years of marriage.
I divorced after 11 years with my first husband. My ring wasn't an heirloom, it was cheap but pretty. I had it resized to fit my mother and when my eldest daughter is older and steadier it will go to her (my ex is her father).

 

[VRBeauty]

Tradition and etiquette aside, it's a matter of law and, as Wink said, the law (or how the courts have interpreted it) varies by state:

http://www.primermagazine.com/2013/...-engagement-ring-if-the-wedding-is-called-off

I'm not aware of an "heirloom ring exclusion," although I'd agree that courtesy and consideration would dictate that an heirloom ring is returned to its "family of origin" regardless.

Which leaves me to wonder... what about the cad who offers a family heirloom as an engagement ring as a way of hedging his bets, knowing that a woman of good upbringing would certainly return it to him should the engagement be called off, no matter what the cause... Forgive me, I've been reading Victorian fiction.

(Interesting aside - according to the link above, some courts have held that if an engagement ring is given on a birthday or as a holiday gift, it becomes it can be seen as an unconditional rather than a conditional gift, and would not have to be returned if the engagement is broken. )

 

[FrekeChild]

Tradition and etiquette aside, it's a matter of law and, as Wink said, the law (or how the courts have interpreted it) varies by state:

http://www.primermagazine.com/2013/...-engagement-ring-if-the-wedding-is-called-off

I'm not aware of an "heirloom ring exclusion," although I'd agree that courtesy and consideration would dictate that an heirloom ring is returned to its "family of origin" regardless.

Which leaves me to wonder... what about the cad who offers a family heirloom as an engagement ring as a way of hedging his bets, knowing that a woman of good upbringing would certainly return it to him should the engagement be called off, no matter what the cause... Forgive me, I've been reading Victorian fiction.

(Interesting aside - according to the link above, some courts have held that if an engagement ring is given on a birthday or as a holiday gift, it becomes it can be seen as an unconditional rather than a conditional gift, and would not have to be returned if the engagement is broken. )

^yup. Women have successfully argued in court that because it was presented on Valentine's/her birthday/Christmas/whatever it was considered an unconditional gift, and not required to be returned because of that. Typically, every other day of the year, it's a conditional gift, and if the condition (marriage/wedding) does not take place, the ring is to be returned to the giver.

(The above, and below, is via my father, a divorce attorney.)

Also, it can be written into the divorce settlement who shall keep the ring in the event of a divorce. These can often be huge problems. I think that Kris Humphries got the ring in the divorce from Kim Kardashian, and then auctioned it off. In contrast, I believe that her sister, Khloe Kardashian kept her engagement ring from Lamar Odom in their divorce (I don't even think that's final yet?). The more a ring costs, the higher the odds of it being fought over in a divorce since it's a bigger asset!

 

[partgypsy]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/01/07/diamond.not.forever/index.html?_s=pm:living

according to this article, what happens to the ring depends on the state and who broke it off. That was my understanding as well (depends on the state how this is interpreted).

 

[AprilBaby]

No matter what the law says, good etiquette would return an heirloom to the family from which it came.

 

[msop04]

I think every state has its own law regarding this, but this is how I've always understood it:

An engagement ring is a contract for marriage, so if the engagement is broken off by the man, the woman keeps the ring and vice versa. I have no clue about an heirloom clause, but it's my opinion that the right thing would be to return it to the family from which it came... regardless of who broke off the engagement.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I think every state has its own law regarding this, but this is how I've always understood it:

An engagement ring is a contract for marriage, so if the engagement is broken off by the man, the woman keeps the ring and vice versa. I have no clue about an heirloom clause, but it's my opinion that the right thing would be to return it to the family from which it came... regardless of who broke off the engagement.

Really???..what if she got caught cheating and then he call off the engagement ?..

 

[ame]

It's not hers until the marriage contract is complete, as far as "law" is concerned in most jurisdictions. So he gets it back anyway. Unless, of course, it's an heirloom from her family.

 

[chrono]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

 

[ame]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

You could potentially make a contract contingent that the ring is returned if the marriage ends or the engagement ends.

 

[partgypsy]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

You could potentially make a contract contingent that the ring is returned if the marriage ends or the engagement ends.

I don't know how I'd feel about this I was the the fiance. Especially if says if marriage ends. I would be wondering am I really part of this family or not? Is this my ring or not? I'd rather have a simple ring I could call my own, than a really nice ring, that I wear but is not really considered my own. Just a thought.

 

[tyty333]

I had a girlfriend who's fiance called off the wedding after giving her his grandmother's ring.

She still had the ring. I asked her if she felt guilty about keeping a family heirloom and she said "No, I lost a lot of deposit money
and as soon as he pays his half then he can have the ring back." I thought that was fair. I would not want to keep someone's
heirloom ring but if he caused me to lose a lot of money then I would expect him to pay up.

 

[VRBeauty]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

I'm sure you're approaching this with the best of intentions, but there's something to be said for a man proposing with a ring that's a reasonable representation of what he can afford at that time - and for the woman that accepts that proposal and that ring. Like part gypsy, I think I'd prefer a simple ring that comes without in-law strings attached to a nicer ring that comes with those conditions.

 

[Gypsy]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

I'm sure you're approaching this with the best of intentions, but there's something to be said for a man proposing with a ring that's a reasonable representation of what he can afford at that time - and for the woman that accepts that proposal and that ring. Like part gypsy, I think I'd prefer a simple ring that comes without in-law strings attached to a nicer ring that comes with those conditions.

I have to agree with this.

Again, I'm sure you have the best intentions.

My feeling is this: I have an attachment toward my jewelry. I would not personally be able to just let something go not knowing if the girl my son selected would be willing to return a piece in the event something happens.

I have always known that an engagement ring should be returned, heirloom or not, if the marriage doesn't happen. But I have met some women who won't and don't return the rings after a broken engagement. Or keep it saying that it is being put toward wedding deposits.

So while I think it is admirable that you want to help out your sons. I think its best not to gift jewelry with the expectation that it stays in the family.

And if you can't do that, then I wouldn't gift the jewelry.

My MIL has gifted me jewelry. And I know there is an expectation that some of it stays in the family. As I have no kids... that means I have to gift it to a niece or nephew. Means I can't do with it what I want (re-set it, etc). That to me isn't "giving". Giving means, it's not yours and you don't get to dictate what happens to it.

Which is why I don't plan on giving away any of my pieces till death. Then it won't matter to me what happens to it all.

 

[Gypsy]

No matter what the law says, good etiquette would return an heirloom to the family from which it came.

I agree with this.

However, I know my OWN generation has many women lacking good etiquette, let alone the younger generations.

 

[marymm]

It appears that the law governing such things vary from state to state so I won't know for sure until DS is ready to marry. Given the ridiculously high price of diamonds and coloured stones today as opposed to a mere 5 years ago (it has doubled), I am concerned that many young men (or women) will find it difficult to afford a nice sized and well cut engagement ring stone when the time is right. I am considering having my boys select a ring from my collection to be used but if there is a chance of it leaving the family, then I have to rethink this. Although etiquette is important, the law has the final say.

I'm sure you're approaching this with the best of intentions, but there's something to be said for a man proposing with a ring that's a reasonable representation of what he can afford at that time - and for the woman that accepts that proposal and that ring. Like part gypsy, I think I'd prefer a simple ring that comes without in-law strings attached to a nicer ring that comes with those conditions.

On this, I agree with VRBeauty, Gypsy, and part gypsy - but then again, years ago, when DH and I decided to marry, we did without an ER and married with matching gold bands. In part our decision to forego an ER was based on finances, but also back then I did not care for diamonds and did not want a "fancy" ring I'd have to wear every day.

Of course, people vary, and Chrono, when it comes time for your son(s) to marry, you may feel differently about gifting one of your diamonds, and/or your son/future DIL may voice a preference for choosing something reflecting their taste and budget.

 

[CharmyPoo]

After I got engaged, my mother offered me a diamond that was double in size but we declined. We wanted something that we paid for on our own versus accepting a diamond. When my brother got engaged, I gave him 3 rings to choose from (none of them were expensive as he was set on not going that route). My mother didn't set aside any of her jewelry for the son because she didn't want the chance of it leaving our family.

Law aside ... I can't imagine keeping an engagement ring that was given to me regardless of who broke it off or why.