Posted on 08/24/2011 12:38:58 PM PDT by Enterprise
"Fresno businessman James Makalian's lawsuit claims he's a victim of fraud and deceit after his ex-fiancee Nichole Grazioli (pictured above) broke up with him and then kept her $53,000 engagement ring and Hummer SUV that he bought for her."
(Excerpt) Read more at kmj580.com ...
An engagement is an unwritten contract. It can be violated by either party in many ways. If the man had a valid reason for breaking the engagement, like the woman cheated on him, or something else that might be unforgivable, then I would think the man might have a case for getting the ring back, but he’d probably have a fight on his hands, if it wasn’t a mutual decision.
I’m sure he would agree with you that he has a fight on his hands. That’s why he got a lawyer.
The dress is bad enough. What’s up with that hair?
The guy said that the plan was to buy the house, fix it up and resell it for twice what he paid. Then he would repay Mom with interest, but he housing market tanked and his plans collapsed.
I can believe him, where he went wrong was with the new wife. Instead of dumping the house and getting out with what he could salvage, he just kept getting in deeper.
This b**** is a perfect example of "you don't know someone until......"
The problem with the verbal agreement is it's one way...So what's her part of the agreement....Nevermind....
“Golf ball . . . garden hose . . .”
Chrome. . . . Trailer hitch. . .
Again, a bland, neutral opinion, but might it be a thought trying to escape? sd
The solution is to not get engaged to someone that you don’t know VERY well.
It’s traditional to give the engagement ring during the proposal, and the wedding ring during the wedding. I don’t know of anyone who ever did it the other way around.
she looks like a “guidette”
Not sure if it’s an actual law, but that’s been common etiquette forever. If she dumped him, he gets the ring.
ping
He needs to sue his optometrist.
You’ve got me there. What is a “guidette?” I’m guessing I’ve outrun the significance of the term. sd
But I'd still hit it.
__________________________________________________________________________
I'll reserve judgment on the “not good enough” till we see a picture of HIM. Good enough is kind of a relative thing.
With you on the rest though
“...the man can still get the property back because they were given in anticipation of marriage.”
That’s my understanding, and I think it is pretty well established. Who on earth would want to decide who REALLY dumped who?
And don’t forget, often people give family heirlooms for engagement rings, so it is not just the value of the ring itself.
But, my guess is she can probably keep the car.
Engagement rings are given as part of a contract to marry. No marry, man gets ring back...Wisdom from Judge Judy on many cases....Its not just a gift its a contract...
I believe that Ann Landers set the matter straight already 35 years ago: if the groom-in-training breaks off an engagement (his fiance' keeps - as consolation prize - any engagement gift); if the bride-to-have-been breaks a marriage engagement (the suitors's intrinsic value is deemed worth less than the engagement present; its in the engeaged-fiance's interest to return whatever engagement present was presented).
I believe the issue stems from financial repercussions there may be of proto-groom leaves his fiance' standing at the alter; who pays for what in the marriage transaction?
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.