Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Canadian judge rules woman can keep $14,300 engagement ring

OoohShiny

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
8,225
Just saw this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40294530

A Canadian judge has ruled that a woman can keep her C$19,000 ($14,300, £11,210) engagement ring.

Lauren Arbuckle's ex-fiance sued her after their relationship ended because of squabbles over wedding finances.

Devin Sherrington sued for the return of the ring and a $6,000 loan after the three-year relationship fell apart.

A Nova Scotia court found that although she ended the relationship, it was not her idea to break up so she did not have to return the gift.


Small claims adjudicator Gregg Knudsen said that since the 3.25 carat diamond ring was gifted on the condition the two would marry, the entire matter rested on who ended the engagement.

If Ms Arbuckle, a hairstylist and make-up artist, ended it, then she must relinquish the gift, he said. However, if Mr Sherrington, a personal trainer, broke it off, then the gift was rightfully hers.


The couple had been engaged for one year before deciding to call it quits because the two could not agree about how to pay for the wedding.

Ms Arbuckle wanted a lavish affair, while Mr Sherrington wanted something more cost-conscious.

He didn't believe his fiancee could afford her half of the wedding cost, the court heard, and feared he would get stuck paying for the whole bill.

He suggested postponing the wedding but she did not want to. Finally, she decided to end the relationship.


At first, Mr Sherrington told Ms Arbuckle she could keep the ring, text messages show. But later, he asked for it back, as well as money he says he loaned her for a trip to Mexico.

Ultimately, Mr Knudsen found that it was Mr Sherrington who called off the engagement, and so the ring rightfully belongs to Ms Arbuckle - although he also ruled that she had to pay him back about C$3,000 for the Mexico trip.

"I find the postponement was an indefinite postponement, sufficient to treat the engagement as over. Ms. Arbuckle may have ended the relationship but Mr. Sherrington ended the engagement," he said.

But Ms Arbuckle's victory is short-lived, as she has had to file for bankruptcy and all her assets - including the ring - are being held by a trustee.
Click to expand...


So it's official - you ladies get to keep the ring if the gent breaks if off!

I'm not sure what happens in a same-sex relationship... lol (Presumably both would have engagement rings and one party ends up with both of them?!)
 
Ha! Good for you Canada lady!
 
I'm in two minds about this. IF the woman calls it off, then I think the ring should be returned, similarly, if the ring was a family heirloom, it should also be returned. If the man calls it off, I'm still not sure it's right to keep the ring if was extremely valuable. Having never been engaged, I've never had that problem :lol:
 
I've been down this road :lol-2: Etiquette says that the period of time of an engagement is to examine if the couple truly wishes to end up, in a reasonable period of time, married. Families get to interact during the engagement, you see each other under certain kinds of pressure. The engagement ring, if there is one, symbolizes the intent to wed.

Rubber Meets Road: Who would want to keep and wear an ER from a failed engagement. Absolutely if family heirloom, it goes back whence it came. If the ring was bought on credit, it should absolutely be returned to help that unfortunate situation.

If either party of the couple wishes to punish the other by keeping the ER, that is a real statement of the way the relationship was conducted. If considerable expense was entered into by one party more than the other for the wedding, the right thing to do would be to split (if no fault situation) or if terrible behavior broke it up, then the person who acted that badly should assume financial burden.
 
Personally I think it's poor form to keep the ring regardless of who ended the relationship. Historically an engagement ring is a symbol of intent to marry between a couple. If the marriage doesn't occur then the promise has not been fulfilled. The ring should be returned to the giver. However, if the bride is dumped at the alter or close to the wedding date then the ring is all hers!
 
On the other hand, I think an ex-fiance who sues you over the ring is a bad acquisition, and I am happy that Lauren Arbuckle is free of the engagement.
(It does not seem like the marriage would have lasted for too long anyhow as the ex-partners seem to have a different opinion on finances.)

About the ring... I remember a friend of my youth, married for three years during which the husband gave her lavish gifts. When they were divorcing, he requested them all (including the ring) back. The lady, sharp-tongued as she was, said, in her angelic voice, "N-no... These are my amortization costs".
She would have probably said that the ring is probably Ms. Arbuckle's. (Although personally I would have returned it, because I would not like to have any memory of that miser).
 
Wasn't it Mae West who returned the ring but kept the stone(s) "for sentimental purposes"? :lol: lol
 
I think he's good to be free of her. I suspect she hoped to sell the ring to pay her excessive debts...which she would have only added to with a lavish wedding. I think he read things correctly in his concern regarding her ability to pay for what she wanted (in life as well as the wedding)

I also think it's bad form to not return the ring. Why stiff someone into paying for something when they could sell it to offset costs, and keep something with bad memories attached. It seems spiteful.

In my mind, the keeping of a ring when the man breaks things off is a throwback to a time when women were valued only for youth and innocence, which would be tarnished by a broken engagement (as the only acceptable reason for this would have been considered a discovery of infidelity and/or loss of virginity) and could potentially 'ruin' her on the marriage market. The value of the ring was seen to be compensation for any potential financial damages caused to her family by breaking things off.
 
Also, keep in mind that $19k might have been close to a year's salary for a personal trainer in that part of Canada. He'd likely be paying it off for years.

ETA: cheap though in comparison to the debt he might have been taking on with marrying her! (Oh I'm a meany tonight!)
 
She should have given it back. At least these two won't be raising kids together. I can't imagine the outcome of that after reading about how they each made bad decisions. They are well rid of each other!
 
I don't think it should matter who ends the relationship BEFORE the wedding; I think it matters who purchased the item. If they had split it, then I could see selling it and splitting the costs, but if one party paid for it, it should be returned to them.
After the wedding, I think it's the receivers.
Anyways, he sounds like he's better off without her lol. He should be happy to eat the cost of that ring to have avoided bankruptcy with her.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top