One text too many cost a man a $53,000 engagement ring

[lioness]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-back-53-000-ring-article-1.174822

There is a time to put down the phone....

 

[lulu]

I get photos of football players when I hit the link.

 

[amc80]

I get photos of football players when I hit the link.

So do I.

 

[alexah]

I saw this article earlier - not the same one but I'm guessing it's similar?

http://gothamist.com/2014/04/07/guy_who_dumped_fiancee_by_text_cant.php

 

[Circe]

Ooof. Yeah, legally speaking, he did it to himself ....

 

[lioness]

Correct link: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state-supreme-court/judge-rules-jilted-woman-can-keep-53000-diamond-engagement-ring-20140405

 

[lioness]

Ooof. Yeah, legally speaking, he did it to himself ....

Completely.

I remember when I was reviewing for the NY bar the rolling of eyes and sucking of teeth among the women in the lecture hall when the NY engagement ring statute was discussed. All he had to do was to stop texting. But no, he went there....

 

[missy]

Well, any person who breaks off an engagement via text gets what he deserves IMO. She probably got the better of the deal cause he doesn't sound like a prince of a guy if you kwim.

 

[lulu]

But how much did they each spend on attorney fees? Especially since this must have started in a lower court.

This is the mediator in me speaking, but they should have split it.

 

[Trekkie]

But how much did they each spend on attorney fees? Especially since this must have started in a lower court.

This is the mediator in me speaking, but they should have split it.

Yes, this is what I thought too. At the end of the day, the only victors are the lawyers!

 

[VRBeauty]

Obviously he gets zero points for breaking an engagement by text. But... I thought the woman gets to keep the ring if the guy breaks the engagement... I'm guessing he thought that too. I guess he learned the hard way that it varies by state. Ouch!

 

[Indylady]

He sounds like an a$$.

 

[msop04]

Wow. One text too many, indeed!

 

[JewelFreak]

Good lesson on when to shut up. Some people always have to have the last word, heh heh.

 

[mary poppins]

But how much did they each spend on attorney fees? Especially since this must have started in a lower court.

This is the mediator in me speaking, but they should have split it.

The New York Supreme Court is actually the trial level court in NY, and it has jurisdiction over cases where the amount is controversy is $25,000+ or a party is seeking equitable relief. This case where guy sought return of $53,000 ring probably started in this court.

The first level of appeals in NY state court is in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and the final level of appeals (highest NY state court) is in the Court of Appeals.

I think NY may be the only court system in the country set up like that. For anyone familiar with other states' court systems, NY sounds backwards and illogical because a "Supreme Court" is usually a state's highest court and is the United States' highest court.

But yes, had to spend money on attorney fees. Luckily pretty simple facts and law, no jury and probably only the two witnesses.

Engagement break up by text - ouch! This information is going to come up when future or potential dates search the guy's name on the internet. Ha ha.

 

[JewelFreak]

Engagement break up by text - ouch! This information is going to come up when future or potential dates search the guy's name on the internet. Ha ha.

Oh yeah, true! What an upper that is!

 

[luv2sparkle]

I am glad she got to keep it. He sounds like such a jerk. I would never sign a pre-nup. Glad that was never an issue. Neither of us owned a thing.

 

[LaraOnline]

If I was dumped after an official engagement and close to the wedding, I would want to keep the ring.
Fancy having to walk away from the relationship without compensation for the damaged reputation, opportunity cost in terms of years wasted etc etc
He sounds like an a-grade schmuck.
So glad my husband didn't force me to sign a pre-nup. It would have destroyed the concept of marriage in my eyes, reducing me to a 'paid lady companion'. But at the time a pre-nup is discussed, significant investment in the relationship has already been made.
So I probably would have signed, begrudgingly.
And resented the emotional blackmail day in day out.
Luckily, I didn't marry 'above my station' so the issue didn't arise.

 

[armywife13]

I am glad she won the case. Break up by text? He deserves to lose the ring!

 

[Deactivated member 42515]

Hmmmm that's very interesting. Remind me not to text anybody incriminating myself! Haha

 

[perry]

He did it to himself; not just relationship wise by by what he wrote in the text messages. The judge got it right.

My other comment is I would suggest that there is a misunderstanding on what a Pre-nup does and does not do. A proper Pre-nup protects the woman as much as the man. In community property states that can be extremely important.

Also, I don't see how anyone can force someone to sign such a document.

In my situation - I explained to Princess Zhanna - and showed her examples - of where the community property laws of this state could work against different spouses and even lead to a financially necessary ending of the marriage in order to protect assets no matter how much you loved the other person (I personally know a friend who went thought this). Princess agreed that she did not want those results.

Then she had her own lawyer representing her interest in negotiating the agreement (and her legal fees cost more than my legal fees). In our state - one sided agreements are quickly tossed out by the courts.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[MollyMalone]

If I was dumped after an official engagement and close to the wedding, I would want to keep the ring. Fancy having to walk away from the relationship without compensation for the damaged reputation * * *

Yikes, is that the usual reaction in your circle of family and friends & social community, i.e., that where a wedding has been called off, one of the parties (or both, if you are told it was a mutually agreed-up decision) is "damaged goods", that there must be something very wrong about them as an individual? Sounds as if it would be even more brutal in such a world to be a divorcée/divorcé.

Texting was a lousy way to officially terminate the relationship (other news reports of the trial itself say that Ms. Clark testified they had talked on the phone -- because Billittier was out of town on an extended trip -- the night before about whether the relationship was going to end; the reference in one of the July 1, 2012 texts to a down payment on a house is because he was asking that she move out of his home by his anticipated return date 2 weeks hence; the July 20 text."Keep it up, and I will take back the ring as well" was apparently prompted by the fact that Ms. Clark had been seeking to recruit mutual friends and his family members re the break-up).

But I don't think we should be casting stones at him for putting a pre-nuptial agreement on the table. There has been no reliable information reported as to its contents, so we are clueless as to whether-how much it sought to put the screws to Christa Clark-- or (an alternate possibility) if she felt overly entitled (pre-nups often have sliding scales whereby one receives more benefits as more years pass between the wedding date & divorce or death). There can be any number of reasons for wanting one that are understandable, legit, when viewed in a big picture context. E.g., even if Billittier doesn't have any children by his prior marriage, he may have wanted to ensure that the charities he's supported -- in particular, the family foundation named after his father (he & his family are well known in the Buffalo area for their philanthropy) -- would receive a greater percentage of his estate than would happen sans agreement if, after his death (likely to happen first, given the age difference between them), Christa initiated probate litigation for receipt of 1/2 his estate.

 

[lioness]

It's not a matter of whether or not she deserves to keep the ring. New York state law is very clear on the subject - no matter who ends the engagement, the ring goes back to the giver, much to the consternation of us women sitting in the bar review lecture in which the subject was discussed. What makes this case interesting is that this schmuck with his hot and happy texting thumbs got carried away and called the ring a "parting gift" in an admissible piece of evidence. The ring, therefore, ceased to be an engagement ring by his own admission. He was no longer entitled to its return under NY law.

Now, if he had talked to the lawyer who drafted the prenup before tapping away, this should never have happened.

 

[lioness]

If I was dumped after an official engagement and close to the wedding, I would want to keep the ring. Fancy having to walk away from the relationship without compensation for the damaged reputation * * *

Yikes, is that the usual reaction in your circle of family and friends & social community, i.e., that where a wedding has been called off, one of the parties (or both, if you are told it was a mutually agreed-up decision) is "damaged goods", that there must be something very wrong about them as an individual? Sounds as if it would be even more brutal in such a world to be a divorcée/divorcé.

Texting was a lousy way to officially terminate the relationship (other news reports of the trial itself say that Ms. Clark testified they had talked on the phone -- because Billittier was out of town on an extended trip -- the night before about whether the relationship was going to end; the reference in one of the July 1, 2012 texts to a down payment on a house is because he was asking that she move out of his home by his anticipated return date 2 weeks hence; the July 20 text."Keep it up, and I will take back the ring as well" was apparently prompted by the fact that Ms. Clark had been seeking to recruit mutual friends and his family members re the break-up).

But I don't think we should be casting stones at him for putting a pre-nuptial agreement on the table. There has been no reliable information reported as to its contents, so we are clueless as to whether-how much it sought to put the screws to Christa Clark-- or (an alternate possibility) if she felt overly entitled (pre-nups often have sliding scales whereby one receives more benefits as more years pass between the wedding date & divorce or death). There can be any number of reasons for wanting one that are understandable, legit, when viewed in a big picture context. E.g., even if Billittier doesn't have any children by his prior marriage, he may have wanted to ensure that the charities he's supported -- in particular, the family foundation named after his father (he & his family are well known in the Buffalo area for their philanthropy) -- would receive a greater percentage of his estate than would happen sans agreement if, after his death (likely to happen first, given the age difference between them), Christa initiated probate litigation for receipt of 1/2 his estate.

Agree 1000%