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.
Wow, diamond ring came from Betteridge, very reputable jeweler.
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.
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.
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.IF he even gets it back. What if she sold it for not much $?
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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?
I would have just taken my chances and written a basic complaint.
I desperately want to hear her side of the story