"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Should MTV's Jersey Shore Be Cancelled?
Adam Lambert Says He's A Performer, Not A Babysitter
Boy with Asperger's Syndrome Rides Subway for 11 Days
Gothamist always thought that when the man in an engaged couple called things off, he should let the woman keep the ring - and if the woman in the engaged couple ended things, she should return the ring. But sometimes there are mitigating factors that make conventional etiquette obsolete. Dana Clyburn Parker of South Carolina met Manhattan financial guy Brian Callahan via Match.com in 2001, eventually moving to NYC. Callahan proposed to her in July 2002, giving her a 3.4 carat ring worth $40,000 (!), but in 2003, Parker dumped him after finding out he was still "pursuing online relationships with other women," as in other emails to women on Match.com. D'oh! But Callahan denies this of course - we're talking about $40,000 of ice!
Anyway, a judge ruled that Parker was able to keep the ring because Callahan wasn't officially divorced when he proposed. Double dippity d'oh! From the Post:
When one of the parties is married, an agreement to marry is void as against public policy," the judge said - so the "gift" cannot be considered conditional.So, in spite of Callahan's complaints that Parker was pressuring him to propose and in spite of being divorced except in paper work, Gothamist says this: Be divorced when you propose. And if this was a longterm grift, touche!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In the Process of a Divorce (Does his wife count that ring as Shared Property??), gets Engaged and Still looking? Serves him right!
He deserved to lose the ring anyway for being stupid.
He didn't have clean hands.
But the real question is: was the value of the ring the correct proportion of this mans monthly income? If not, she should sue for more!
Let loose the lawyers!
Both New York tabloids picked up this weekend on a widely reported case involving a broken engagement and the return of an engagement ring. (Finance Hits Rock Bottom and Fiance is “Gift” Rapped.)
In this case, the husband-to-be sought to recover a large diamond engagement ring given to his ex-finance, who broke off the engagement. The woman was allowed to keep the valuable ring.
An engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. That is, the gift is conditioned upon the marriage actually taking place. If the marriage takes place, the condition is satisfied, and the woman is permitted to keep the ring. Conversely, if the marriage does not occur, the would-be-bride must return the ring.
So why was the woman, who broke off the engagement, allowed to retain the engagement ring? Because, there is an exception to the general rule: if a man is already married, he cannot legally contract to wed. The condition for giving the ring cannot be satisfied. Therefore, the woman is entitled to retain the purported gift made in contemplation of marriage even if the parties never wed.
The recent case was interesting because the man actually had been granted a divorce in Massachusetts, one month before he gave his fiancee the engagement ring. However, unlike New York, where the parties are free to re-marry as soon as the judgment of divorce is entered, in Massachusetts, the divorce does not become absolute until the passage of some time.
Although the man had successfully done everything that had to be done in order to obtain a divorce, that the divorce had been granted and that that all that was required for the divorce to become absolute was the passage of time, the Court ruled that the man was impaired from remarrying. Therefore, he was not entitled to the return of his ring.
The moral- Do not become engaged unless and until you are legally divorced
Both New York tabloids picked up this weekend on a widely reported case involving a broken engagement and the return of an engagement ring. (Finance Hits Rock Bottom and Fiance is “Gift” Rapped.) For purposes of complete disclosure, I represented the husband-to-be
In this case, the husband-to-be sought to recover a large diamond engagement ring given to his ex-finance, who broke off the engagement. The woman was allowed to keep the valuable ring.
An engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. That is, the gift is conditioned upon the marriage actually taking place. If the marriage takes place, the condition is satisfied, and the woman is permitted to keep the ring. Conversely, if the marriage does not occur, the would-be-bride must return the ring.
So why was the woman, who broke off the engagement, allowed to retain the engagement ring? Because, there is an exception to the general rule: if a man is already married, he cannot legally contract to wed. The condition for giving the ring cannot be satisfied. Therefore, the woman is entitled to retain the purported gift made in contemplation of marriage even if the parties never wed.
The recent case was interesting because the man actually had been granted a divorce in Massachusetts, one month before he gave his fiancee the engagement ring. However, unlike New York, where the parties are free to re-marry as soon as the judgment of divorce is entered, in Massachusetts, the divorce does not become absolute until the passage of some time.
Although the man had successfully done everything that had to be done in order to obtain a divorce, that the divorce had been granted and that that all that was required for the divorce to become absolute was the passage of time, the Court ruled that the man was impaired from remarrying. Therefore, he was not entitled to the return of his ring.
The moral- Do not become engaged unless and until you are legally divorced