Posted on 07/08/2006 5:09:43 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Woman dumps man, keeps ring
By SAMUEL MAULL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A woman who found out that the man who proposed to her was married can keep the $40,000 engagement ring he gave her, even though she was the one who broke off the relationship, a judge has ruled.
Judge Rolando T. Acosta said that because Brian Callahan was still married when he gave Dana Clyburn Parker a 3.41-carat diamond engagement ring, the agreement to marry was void.
Acosta noted that Callahan was in the process of getting a divorce in Massachusetts when he proposed. In June 2002, Callahan, of Manhattan, received a judgment of divorce nisi, meaning the divorce from his wife had been approved but would not be official and absolute for another 90 days.
That July, Callahan, 36, and Parker, of Charleston, S.C., got engaged in South Carolina and she moved to New York to live with him, the judge wrote. They had met on the Internet in September 2001.
Parker, a mortgage broker, dumped Callahan after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married, her lawyer, Kevin Conway, said Friday.
Callahan, who works in the financial services industry, sued in July 2003 to get back the ring — or alternatively $40,000 — and his personal property. While the judge allowed Parker to keep the ring, he ordered her to return Callahan's personal property.
Callahan's lawyer said his client had not decided whether to appeal.
Well, there's your first clue.
"dumped Callahan after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married"
lol internet.
Hmmmm... That certainly didn't stop my now ex-wife from running off with another man and agreeing to marry him while she was married to me.
It's legal system, NOT a justice system.
One only gets as much justice as one can afford.
Didn't I read once of a woman forcing the return of a ring given by her husband to another woman, on the theory that he had given commonly held property away to another, without the wife's permission? Maybe the wife could sue to force the return of the ring.
Never get between a woman and your money.
If the answer to either question is "no",then I can't see him having done anything so wrong as to entitle her to $40K.
Yah,cruising the web for babes is a good reason for her to dump him.And not having told her of his marriage also gives her good reason to be ticked off.
But not to the tune of $40K.
One could understand such a thing if divorce proceedings hadn't been initiated...that is,if the recipient was his secret girlfriend...but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Do you mean that the case described in the original post was a "secret girlfriend" situation? If you do,I guess that in the very strictest sense of that term,his wife *was* his secret girlfriend because her existence hadn't been revealed to the new "fiance".
But were he and his wife living together at the time? Were they sleeping together? Divorce proceedings *had* been initiated..and were almost complete.
Unless there's something that I'm missing here..or that hasn't been disclosed in the article...I'm not sure that she has the *moral* right to keep the ring.
From an old Joan Rivers stand-up routine:
"If you break an engagement and don't want to give the ring back, swallow it. No man will look through sh!* for a diamond."
(Pause for the REAL punchline....)
"Barbara Bush told me that, and she's absolutely right."
They had met on the InternetWell, there's your first clue.
The Eleventh Commandment!
She shouldn't have been too shocked, seeing as that's how she met him.
Good for her.
Since he was married, the ring was not an "engagement ring", but a gift.
Legally, you can keep gifts.
I am unsure of the legal status for engagement rings...traditionally if you break an engagement you send it back. If he breaks it, you can keep it...
Since essentially he "broke" the engagement because he had no intention of marrying her, she should keep the ring.
Serves the SOB right.
$40,000. for a 3.4 caret diamond? Wow, am I out of the loop!
Presenting an engagement ring is based on a promise to marry. If the date of marriage was after a divorce, which it must be, and the divorce is final except for 90 day wait, then the divorce has to be presumed certain and the promise to marry is still valid.
Most likely, this guy will win on appeal, if he can afford the lawyer's fees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.