Broken engagement; $100K e-ring

[JPie]

It'll be difficult for her to find another boyfriend with her name on the internet like this. Unless she finds a guy who doesn't know how to google

If she's really as awful as she sounds, I'm sure she'll have no problem finding the next sucker.

 

[doberman]

WOW. The more I read the more angry I got at the ex-fiance. He did everything to try to please her.

And therein lies the problem.

I know it's not cool to blame the victim, but damn! That boy was not smart.

 

[bmfang]

Cripes.

And the OEC wasn’t even especially well cut too.

I feel for the guy after reading the filing, but I also want to see the other side of the story as well as what the final outcome turns out to be.

 

[LLJsmom]

He’s an idiot. BAd decisions on his part. Yeah she should give the ring back. Sucks for her. Good for him. If the engagement starts like this can you imagine a lifetime of being married to her? Even if she gets to keep it, he got off easy. A lifetime would be way more expensive. Hopefully he learned his lesson and will not be the dopenon a rope in his next relationship.

 

[Lookinagain]

i think we should all take into account that there is usually a "he said, she said", especially on a day like today with the hearings evidencing that. All we have heard (or read) is one side. There are always two sides. We really shouldn't judge until facts are known and neither sides "complaint" will tell us that. They are just allegations. Only the court can decide what it believes to be the facts. Regardless, the whole situation and the publicity it seems to be receiving, is sad.

 

[KKJohnson]

He’s an idiot. BAd decisions on his part. Yeah she should give the ring back. Sucks for her. Good for him. If the engagement starts like this can you imagine a lifetime of being married to her? Even if she gets to keep it, he got off easy. A lifetime would be way more expensive. Hopefully he learned his lesson and will not be the dopenon a rope in his next relationship.

This all brings to mind the Mariah Carey engagement breakup, sometimes its worth just losing a little bit to be rid of someone

 

[SimoneDi]

This all brings to mind the Mariah Carey engagement breakup, sometimes its worth just losing a little bit to be rid of someone

So true and in this case maybe a wee bit more, but still very minimal when compared to a split after marriage and assuming scalable finances.

 

[KKJohnson]

So true and in this case maybe a wee bit more, but still very minimal when compared to a split after marriage and assuming scalable finances.

Exactly

 

[skypie]

For those of you who are saying "but we don't know her side of the story": curious -- what type of facts would make you think she deserved to keep the ring?

Even if he had done something bad (e.g. cheated on her) would that justify her keeping the ring?

 

[LJsapphire]

Wow, is it even real?

 

[The Stig]

For those of you who are saying "but we don't know her side of the story": curious -- what type of facts would make you think she deserved to keep the ring?

Even if he had done something bad (e.g. cheated on her) would that justify her keeping the ring?

For those of you who are saying "but we don't know her side of the story": curious -- what type of facts would make you think she deserved to keep the ring?

Even if he had done something bad (e.g. cheated on her) would that justify her keeping the ring?

- Her family loaned him cash to pay the deposit and help pay down the loan
- When they broke-up he withdrew all her savings from her bank account or joint bank account or accessed her trust account
- He took possession of something of value from her and she is holding onto the ring until he gives that back.
- There is a family dispute or some other financial dispute and legal counsel advised her to hold onto the ring until the court orders her to give back the ring or the dispute is settled. (this is not uncommon in disputes)
- He lead her to believe that she could keep the ring, sell it off, and pocket the cash knowing full well he wouldn't break-even if she gave the ring back and he had to sell it. Now that she sold it off, he can manipulate the facts and she would be on the hook for reimbursing him the appraised value of the ring instead of what she sold it for.

All very possible

 

[denverappraiser]

FWIW there may be some significant tax implications. If it was a 'gift' of over $15,000, there is a gift tax owed. The exception to this has to do with gifts to a spouse, which clearly didn't occur here. If it was 'earned income', without getting into what she did to earn it, there is income tax owed. Either way, SOMEONE owes the government a bunch of money.

 

[msop04]

- Her family loaned him cash to pay the deposit and help pay down the loan
- When they broke-up he withdrew all her savings from her bank account or joint bank account or accessed her trust account
- He took possession of something of value from her and she is holding onto the ring until he gives that back.
- There is a family dispute or some other financial dispute and legal counsel advised her to hold onto the ring until the court orders her to give back the ring or the dispute is settled. (this is not uncommon in disputes)
- He lead her to believe that she could keep the ring, sell it off, and pocket the cash knowing full well he wouldn't break-even if she gave the ring back and he had to sell it. Now that she sold it off, he can manipulate the facts and she would be on the hook for reimbursing him the appraised value of the ring instead of what she sold it for.

All very possible

Link to the source of this info?

 

[partgypsy]

I read about this somewhere else, and someone piped in that they knew this person (worked at same law firm) was an interesting person, and she was his first girlfriend. After that experience, maybe his last.

 

[msop04]

I read about this somewhere else, and someone piped in that they knew this person (worked at same law firm) was an interesting person, and she was his first girlfriend. After that experience, maybe his last.

God... seriously.

 

[The Stig]

Link to the source of this info?

What are you talking about? These are possible scenarios in response to a previous poster asking for them.

 

[ChristineRose]

I read about this somewhere else, and someone piped in that they knew this person (worked at same law firm) was an interesting person, and she was his first girlfriend. After that experience, maybe his last.

Actually my first thought was that by "interesting" they meant "someone you shouldn't marry." It makes me want to hear her side of the story even more.
Also, there's this:

Jenna Greene, the San Francisco-based editor of The Litigation Daily, who first reported the case (says) “In rich, painful (and possibly unnecessary) detail, Strasser lays out his version of how he was wronged.”

Obviously there are two sides to this story, but I don't think I'd assume Mr. Strasser is an easy going sweetheart.

 

[msop04]

What are you talking about? These are possible scenarios in response to a previous poster asking for them.

Sorry... I thought you'd read this somewhere and were giving "her story" of sorts. LOL *facepalm*

 

[The Stig]

FWIW there may be some significant tax implications. If it was a 'gift' of over $15,000, there is a gift tax owed. The exception to this has to do with gifts to a spouse, which clearly didn't occur here. If it was 'earned income', without getting into what she did to earn it, there is income tax owed. Either way, SOMEONE owes the government a bunch of money.

Plaintiff is on the hook for the gift tax. Defendent is on the hook for Capital Gains tax when she sells the ring. However this will be moot when court rules the defendent has to return the ring. If the plaintiff then sells it off, he is on the hook for capital gains tax.

 

[The Stig]

FWIW there may be some significant tax implications. If it was a 'gift' of over $15,000, there is a gift tax owed. The exception to this has to do with gifts to a spouse, which clearly didn't occur here. If it was 'earned income', without getting into what she did to earn it, there is income tax owed. Either way, SOMEONE owes the government a bunch of money.

Oh, and looking at the invoice, there was zero sales tax collected on the ring. Therefore the defendent should be declaring and paying use tax on the ring. I betcha she didn’t. Anyone want to tip-off the relevant tax authority in D.C? He could nail her on tax evasion

 

[LinSF]

The Stig must be an accountant. I was thinking some of the same things!

 

[The Stig]

The Stig must be an accountant. I was thinking some of the same things!

Nah, just a test driver for cars on the UK show called Top Gear

 

[LLJsmom]

Plaintiff is on the hook for the gift tax. Defendent is on the hook for Capital Gains tax when she sells the ring. However this will be moot when court rules the defendent has to return the ring. If the plaintiff then sells it off, he is on the hook for capital gains tax.

Slippery slope to bring gift tax into discussion. So is every ering the exceeds the annual exclusion subject to gift tax? I mean the amount in excess of the annual exclusion? And I doubt he would have proceeds in excess of his cost basis if he sells it. Cap gains prob not an issue.

 

[vintageloves]

Engagement rings are not subject to the gift tax because they are a conditional gift. When the marriage occurs, the ring becomes a completed gift to your spouse, and gifts within a marriage are exempt. When the marriage does not occur, the ring is returned to the buyer and thus no more gift. And capital gains only applies if he makes a profit, and it's a near certainty that won't happen.

 

[Johnbt]

More than I wanted to know, but I did have to look it up and file a gift tax form last year...

The lifetime gift tax exemption is currently 11.18 million dollars. Any person is allowed to give $15,000 per year to ANY number of other people and do it every year. If you give one person more than $15k a year you have to file a form with the IRS telling them about it, and then the total of the yearly excesses are subtracted from your $11,180,000 exemption.

When you die your estate is taxed by the feds if you have more money than your adjusted exemption number.

So...

"For example, if you made a lifetime taxable gift of $5 million in 2017, your remaining exemption amount that could be used by your estate at your death would be $6.18 million ($11.18 million 2018 inflation adjusted exemption, less the $5 million lifetime gift).
Estate, Gift, and GST Taxes | Section of Real Property, Trust and ...

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/real_property.../estate_gift_and_gst_taxes.html "

 

[rocks]

Without looking at the article or reading the replies, I will say that legally it varies by state. And generally (but not always ), if the ring was given for a holiday (Christmas, birthday, etc), it is usually legally a gift and hers regardless if it results in marriage, but given at any other time he usually would retain ownership if there were no marriage. But state laws vary and morally, it’s a different argument entirely. But buying a $100K ring that your clearly cannot afford by draining savings and borrowing is a different issue all together. Good grief

I wasn't going to get into this level of detail, but you are absolutely correct about the legal issues. Does not change the fact that she is a predator. A five bedroom house for a young, single income couple with no children (thankfully....would not want her to reproduce) and little savings? Really?

 

[denverappraiser]

Normally an e-ring would not have anything to do with the gift tax because the ‘gift’ doesn’t really happen until after the marriage. That’s then a spouse.

 

[EvaEvans]

The fool has to pay the price of his foolishness! When you choose by exterior appearance instead by inner qualities is what you get!

 

[LLJsmom]

More than I wanted to know, but I did have to look it up and file a gift tax form last year...

The lifetime gift tax exemption is currently 11.18 million dollars. Any person is allowed to give $15,000 per year to ANY number of other people and do it every year. If you give one person more than $15k a year you have to file a form with the IRS telling them about it, and then the total of the yearly excesses are subtracted from your $11,180,000 exemption.

When you die your estate is taxed by the feds if you have more money than your adjusted exemption number.

So...

"For example, if you made a lifetime taxable gift of $5 million in 2017, your remaining exemption amount that could be used by your estate at your death would be $6.18 million ($11.18 million 2018 inflation adjusted exemption, less the $5 million lifetime gift).
Estate, Gift, and GST Taxes | Section of Real Property, Trust and ...

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/real_property.../estate_gift_and_gst_taxes.html "

I think that is too hilarious. I considered whether it was a completed gift too. That sure takes the romance out of any ering. “Hon, here is your engagement ring. But it’s not really yours until you marry me, actually sign the papers. Until then, I’m just being nice to let you wear it.” Not quite as strict as the Bachelor requirements, which I think is two years. So if she really wanted the ring, she should have married him for a day and then asked for a divorce. I am guessing he would fight that. Maybe just too much hassle for a ring.

 

[vintageloves]

The fool has to pay the price of his foolishness! When you choose by exterior appearance instead by inner qualities is what you get!

Oh, he's paying. For a lawsuit. For a ring he'll never recoup the full price of. For the public paper trail that now marks him as a chump. For every time a future employer or date googles his name.

And if it's true that this was his first girlfriend, in his late 30s, I'm guessing alive and likes me back were the only qualities he was looking for at that point.