Broken engagement; $100K e-ring

[canuk-gal]

Nothing good here. Only speculation, sadness, bitterness, and vindictiveness. No win. No good news at all. ugh

 

[LetLoveRule]

No, the law is the law and it is generally not concerned at all with infidelity. Prior to marriage, the ring belongs to the giver, after marriage, the ring belongs to the receiver. In some states, an engagement ring or jewelry could be considered marital property.

The laws in Australia are not the same as in the US but even still, judges sometime rule differently depending on the circumstances. It's apparently also different if you've lived together for more than 2 years.

My question, however, was if opinions would be different in case of infidelity.

 

[Rad_Fan]

Wow, diamond ring came from Betteridge, very reputable jeweler.

Sorry that this is off the topic but I can't help to share this "ring pop" with y'all!

Look at the profile of this "sucker"!!!!

https://www.betteridge.com/fancy-light-yellow-diamond-ring/p/43951/

 

[ice empress]

How awful all around... for her to demand a ring clearly WAY out of his budget (that she then refuses to give back), and for him to be foolish enough to concede. Needles to say, no one should drain their savings and take out loans to spend on a luxury good they clearly cannot afford.

That is a bright giant red flag regarding her character (or lack thereof) that he probably wishes he had taken more seriously now.

I hope they come to a swift and amicable resolution and can both move on to better things...

 

[The Stig]

Sorry folks, I read the filing, and must admit that it just reads too one sided to be believable. Especially the red flags and way the defendent is depicted in the beginning of the suite before he proposed. If things played out the way it was depicted, then I think most sane people would run a mile, not actually propose to the lady. He really does look foolish if that’s how events played out and yet he still proposed. Remember, there are always multiple sides to a story and then the truth. I think there is more at play that we don’t know about, and therefore shouldn’t just take sides and judge. Just my two cents.

 

[Lookinagain]

No, the law is the law and it is generally not concerned at all with infidelity. Prior to marriage, the ring belongs to the giver, after marriage, the ring belongs to the receiver. In some states, an engagement ring or jewelry could be considered marital property.

well, there is a caveat in some jurisdictions. If the ring was presented on a birthday, Christmas or even perhaps Valentines Day, it could be considered a gift and if it were, then no, she wouldn't necessarily have to give it back.

 

[Swirl68]

Dang, that 23 page complaint was just rough.

I could’t do it. I would not want that document, with those details, to ever see the light of day. Dignity, pride, and career would come first.

I would have just taken my chances and written a basic complaint. Something like, “We were going to get married, now we’re not, and I want my rightful property back.” Just filed it, and hoped for the best!

 

[Maisie]

I would be interested in finding out why they broke up. Because I’m nosy

 

[HappyNewLife]

Omg. Thank goodness he proposed on 2/9 and not 5 days later. I wonder if Valentine’s day would have been considered a gift.

Man. I know it’s his side of the story, but this document makes her look like such a B word.

 

[HappyNewLife]

(I’m still reading the long document, but SHE DIDN’T LET HIM INTO THE APARTMENT HE PAID FOR IN ORDER TO GET HIS PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION?)

 

[Bron357]

I think he was lucky to get away.
I mean she lived off him essentially the whole time, dictating I need this, I want that while she’s a student and not even working a part time job!
I’m sure her wants just escalated and escalated, after she says “just a small wedding cos I got a $100k ring” he’s thinking 10 people and she’s at 30 to 40 at some fancy hotel where a nights accommodation is $900!
He’s probably decided to try and put his foot down and say “enough, we can’t afford it all” and she’s like “well, it’s over then and you can get out”.
I mean, she rings his parents and says “he’s crying and won’t stop and you need to come and take him away”. Too bad it’s “his” house (he’s on the lease, he pays all the bills, he bought all the furniture”).
I mean, apart from refusing to return the ring, she stayed in the house while he was still paying the rent for it and then willfully damaged said house to the tune of $5,000 AND she still has a stack of his belongings.
Boy oh boy what a nightmare for him, and he’s hardly likely to get back the full $100k when he tries to sell the ring to recoup his losses.

 

[HappyNewLife]

I think he was lucky to get away.
I mean she lived off him essentially the whole time, dictating I need this, I want that while she’s a student and not even working a part time job!
I’m sure her wants just escalated and escalated, after she says “just a small wedding cos I got a $100k ring” he’s thinking 10 people and she’s at 30 to 40 at some fancy hotel where a nights accommodation is $900!
He’s probably decided to try and put his foot down and say “enough, we can’t afford it all” and she’s like “well, it’s over then and you can get out”.
I mean, she rings his parents and says “he’s crying and won’t stop and you need to come and take him away”. Too bad it’s “his” house (he’s on the lease, he pays all the bills, he bought all the furniture”).
I mean, apart from refusing to return the ring, she stayed in the house while he was still paying the rent for it and then willfully damaged said house to the tune of $5,000 AND she still has a stack of his belongings.
Boy oh boy what a nightmare for him, and he’s hardly likely to get back the full $100k when he tries to sell the ring to recoup his losses.

IF he even gets it back. What if she sold it for not much $?

 

[Bron357]

IF he even gets it back. What if she sold it for not much $?

Nah, I’m wondering if it’s going to have been “lost” or “stolen” which won’t get her off the hook because if he then claims on the insurance, as he quite rightly is entitled to do, the insurance company is going to play mean and nasty and if turns out not “lost” or “stolen” that’s insurance fraud aka a criminal offense.
A 4 carat OEC with a GIA inscription isnt your average diamond!
I’m keeping my eye on eBay!
I’m hoping he sells the rights to HBO or someone, what a fab drama!

 

[elle_71125]

I read the filing (thanks for posting it @SimoneDi ) and this lady comes off as a real peach. Orders him to buy furniture. Orders him to move to a larger place. Orders him to propose within one year (and with a diamond well out of his price range). I don’t care how biased the filing is, there is no way this lady is anything but an entitled, gold digging brat!

I feel pretty bad for this guy. Can you imagine having to tell someone that your ex fiancé called your parents to get you because you wouldn’t stop crying? That’s humiliating. I’m sure he’s not perfect but she walked all over him. I hope he gets the ring back.

 

[SimoneDi]

well, there is a caveat in some jurisdictions. If the ring was presented on a birthday, Christmas or even perhaps Valentines Day, it could be considered a gift and if it were, then no, she wouldn't necessarily have to give it back.

That is true. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that most states in the US consider engagement rings to be conditional gifts and the condition is marriage. Some states take the “no fault” approach which would mean that regardless of who is the party responsible for the broken engagement, the giver is the rightful owner of the ring. Other states have adopted a fault based approach and the courts will consider who is responsible for the broken engagement in order to determine who should obtain possession of the ring. Only one state considers engagemnt ring be an unconditional gift. However, it is likely that other circumstances and facts will also be evaluated, such as true intent to marry, length of engagement, etc. It is a very gray area of the law.

 

[The Stig]

I can’t believe you are all falling for the story in the filing. There are so many points that don’t make any sense like:

1) why would he even propose to someone coming off as a money grabbing monster
2) why would she fight to stay in the apartment and then just abandon it
3) why would she purposely damage the apartment like that, especially if she intends to hold onto the ring and knows that there will be a fight in the courts later.
4) in the exhibits, the one e-mail refers to an e-mail the defendant sent stating she would concede, yet why is that e-mail then not in the exhibits?
5) doesn’t quite make sense that she would agree to give back the ring and then change her mind

I can find a lot more holes in that thing. Remember, this is an attorney himself, so I think he is manipulating stuff to make her look bad. I desperately want to hear her side of the story

 

[SimoneDi]

@The I am happy that you are a level headed guy who wouldn’t marry a materialistic woman, but this is a fine example of a situation I have seen several times IRL (well minus the 100k e-ring), so I can believe it plausibility.

A few responses below:

I can’t believe you are all falling for the story in the filing. There are so many points that don’t make any sense like:

1) why would he even propose to someone coming off as a money grabbing monster

Some men can be completely blinded by love. He was clearly one of them.

2) why would she fight to stay in the apartment and then just abandon it

Umm.. so he can pay for it while she loves there and and then take all of his possessions.

3) why would she purposely damage the apartment like that, especially if she intends to hold onto the ring and knows that there will be a fight in the courts later.

Maybe she didn’t think that there will be a fight in court later. She wasn’t officially on the lease, although residency can be proven in other ways.

4) in the exhibits, the one e-mail refers to an e-mail the defendant sent stating she would concede, yet why is that e-mail then not in the exhibits?

I saw that all statements on her side were verbal. His email to her listing the points of the conversation is attached. Nonetheless, they might be keeping some things to be revealed at a later point. They demanded a jury trial.

5) doesn’t quite make sense that she would agree to give back the ring and then change her mind

Haha it totally makes sense when she never intended to give it back in the first place or that she changes her mind after being influenced by her mother.


I can find a lot more holes in that thing. Remember, this is an attorney himself, so I think he is manipulating stuff to make her look bad.

There’s is certainly more to the story, but this complaint does not speak well for her character.

I desperately want to hear her side of the story

 

[missy]

If the story is true then she is behaving abhorrently and should clearly give back the ring. But as @The Stig wrote we only have one side of the story or at least it seems slanted in one direction. Is the story completely factual? IDK. But yeah if it is all I can say is
Talk about bad karma associated with that ring if she keeps it. Blechh.

This is how you do it.

 

[vintageloves]

Regardless of what her side of the story is, she needs to be returning that ring. The fact that she didn't do this first thing after the end of the relationship does not speak well of her character. It's a rare woman that would demand a 100K ring her fiance couldn't afford, and a rare man who would give in to the point of draining his life's savings and taking out a loan. Somehow they found each other, and it's probably to the benefit of the universe that they aren't getting married.

 

[arkieb1]

That was one pu$$y whipped guy. Hopefully he walks away with something because his own dignity is in tatters.

 

[peacechick]

Let’s look on the bright side. No marriage occurred. No children were involved (thank God, although poor hostage dogs). They did not buy a house or any properties together. Even if the guy doesn’t get his ring back, it is an immeasurably better situation than having an ex-wife who wants half his net worth and is holding the kids hostage. Especially since his net worth will surely be more than 200k one day.

As for the woman, whatever her story is, she didn’t marry someone who wasn’t right for her.

After the embarrassment dies down, they are still two well-educated, privileged good looking young people with bright futures. It’s a lesson learnt and I hope it won’t become an enduring source of bitterness.

 

[The Stig]

Regardless of what her side of the story is, she needs to be returning that ring. The fact that she didn't do this first thing after the end of the relationship does not speak well of her character. It's a rare woman that would demand a 100K ring her fiance couldn't afford, and a rare man who would give in to the point of draining his life's savings and taking out a loan. Somehow they found each other, and it's probably to the benefit of the universe that they aren't getting married.

Take a look at the evidence he posted in the exhibits. Do see you any evidence there that he paid for the ring on his own, or who paid the 10k deposit? What about the actual loan agreement? interesting that he never provided a bank statement, or credit card statement evidencing that he paid anything. Perhaps the defendant's dad is a guarantor on the loan, or paid for the deposit ect ect. Not saying its not black and white, but why isn't that part of the filing?

Maybe the plaintiff has possessions of the defendant. Maybe the plaintiff has control over savings or trust funds belonging to the defendant. Perhaps the defendant has been advised by her own legal counsel to hold onto the ring until other matters have been resolved. My point is that there could be a perfectly reasonable reason that the defendant is holding on to the ring. I find it incredibly disturbing how you and others are so quick to make a judgment without knowing all the facts and circumstances.

 

[msop04]

Damn, ya'll... I really feel for this guy. Regardless of what actually went on in their relationship that ultimately ended their engagement, he still got screwed. It would seem to me that he got her exactly what she wanted in a ring, since most dudes wouldn't just go get a HUGE $100K OEC all willy-nilly... especially since he had to drain his savings AND go into debt to give it to her -- but that's just my opinion, of course. I don't know why in the world she'd think she'd be entitled to keep a ring that was given with promise of marriage, when no marriage occurred...

 

[ChristineRose]

Take a look at the evidence he posted in the exhibits. Do see you any evidence there that he paid for the ring on his own, or who paid the 10k deposit? What about the actual loan agreement? interesting that he never provided a bank statement, or credit card statement evidencing that he paid anything. Perhaps the defendant's dad is a guarantor on the loan, or paid for the deposit ect ect. Not saying its not black and white, but why isn't that part of the filing?

Maybe the plaintiff has possessions of the defendant. Maybe the plaintiff has control over savings or trust funds belonging to the defendant. Perhaps the defendant has been advised by her own legal counsel to hold onto the ring until other matters have been resolved. My point is that there could be a perfectly reasonable reason that the defendant is holding on to the ring. I find it incredibly disturbing how you and others are so quick to make a judgment without knowing all the facts and circumstances.

They lived together, so they might be common law man and wife.

I happen to live in a town where there was a legal dispute which was all over the TV--talk shows, in depth news shows like 60 Minutes and Nightline. There was even a crappy made for TV movie.

I personally knew some of the people involved. I can tell you that everything the media said was distorted. Lots of people online were expressing their indignity at the case and saying things that were 100% absolutely wrong. The media picked up on one side of the story and let one party make all sorts of misleading and cruel statements. It was hideous. The "other side" won, which is no surprise as legally the whole thing was open and shut, but that didn't stop people from vilifying them. Everybody ended up miserable of course.

 

[holeydonut]

Most states the law is clear, the engagement ring is a gift that is conditional on the marriage. Once she says "I do" it belongs to her entirely, prior to that it is a conditional item that regardless of the reason, if they do not marry must be returned to the giver.
He is an idiot for taking a loan of any sort to pay for a ring, but since they did not marry, it belongs to him still.

I’m actually impressed at how the author described the man’s rather low interest rate on a SoFi personal loan... that’s some serious journalism right there.

IMO, society attaches so much value to the engagement ring to have it be treated with the same logic as you would a normal gift. I think the law has to be impartial and treat it like any other property.

But the absurd circumstance and symbolism that is often associated with the engagement ring makes it hard to attach normal human logic to what the ring giver is supposed to spend or commit to finance it.

Just taking a straw poll of what the women in my office think... Some women seem to think of the ring more as a momento and generous gift that they have to wear every day. Some women tend to think the ring symbolizes a bunch of things that manifest in an expensive piece of jewelry. Some married women don’t even wear their engagement ring since they just don’t care.

Whatever the case, the ring becomes symbolic of whether the man understands the woman’s specific expectations and mindset.

 

[vintageloves]

Take a look at the evidence he posted in the exhibits. Do see you any evidence there that he paid for the ring on his own, or who paid the 10k deposit? What about the actual loan agreement? interesting that he never provided a bank statement, or credit card statement evidencing that he paid anything. Perhaps the defendant's dad is a guarantor on the loan, or paid for the deposit ect ect. Not saying its not black and white, but why isn't that part of the filing?

"On that same day, Mr. Strasser made his first payment of $10,000.00. He then made four
payments of $20,000.00, one on January 10, 2017; one on January 12, 2017; one on January 14,
2017; and one on January 24, 2017. He made two final payment on January 26, 2017, one for
$3,800.00 on one credit card and one for $6,000.00 on a second credit card. To help make all of
the payments, Mr. Strasser took out a $30,000 personal loan through SoFi at an interest rate of
5.95% per annum. Since February 2, 2017, Mr. Strasser has made monthly installment payments
of $912.71, and he is obligated to continue making such monthly payments through January 1,
2020."

I guess we're supposed to believe a lawyer would make such a specific, easily verifiable, claim in a complaint but is just lying?

It's one thing to think there must be more to the story, but it's not "disturbing" to believe he is the legal owner of the ring, because that is the law.

 

[baby monster]

So sad when relationships come to this. Any Google search of their names will bring up the lawsuit for the rest of their lives.

I wonder how many pics of that ring and happy couple are still up on her IG.

 

[AV_]

I would have just taken my chances and written a basic complaint.

Indeed

 

[AV_]

I desperately want to hear her side of the story

So might a few news editors & even publishers, I dread.

 

[HappyNewLife]

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