Posted on 09/25/2018 2:03:18 PM PDT by Cecily
When Ryan Strasser, then an associate at Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C., got down on one knee and asked Sarah Jones Dickens to marry him, he knew one thing: She’d like the ring.
It was 4.06 carats, a near-colorless, old European cut brilliant diamond, mounted in platinum with 14 diamond accents. And it fit what he says were her must-have requirements: 3.5 to 5 carats with an inclusion rating of no “worse” than VS2 and a color rating of no “worse” than G, and with no fluorescence.
The price? $100,000.
And then, 11 months later…they broke up.
According to Strasser, now an associate at Troutman Sanders in Richmond, Virginia, Dickens won’t return the ring—which he’s stuck paying off until 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
I think that is established with the "must have requirements" bit ...
I agree.
If she is so mercenary as to give you a minimum standard on the engagement ring it is a clue you should run the other way.
If I had to take out a loan to buy an engagement ring I would figure that I was too poor to marry.
In 49/50 states an engagement ring is deemed a “conditional gift,” which means you must meet a future condition before you can consider the gift to be yours — marriage being the condition.
Saw your post and thought “Good. It’s not just me ...”
In New York and in most, if not all, jurisdictions it is in fact settled law. An engagement ring is a conditional gift. Absent a subsequent marriage it is not hers to keep. Doesn’t matter who broke it off. This is not an unusual case, just the size of it.
But I always like to leave some room for people to surprise me.
Unless you’re some kind of gazillionaire (and it definitely sounds like this guy isn’t), $100K for a ring is just stupid. A fool and his money are soon parted. Linkedin indicates that his ex is an art history student at Duke. She’s also a fan of Kristen Gillibrand and ‘liked’ a photo of Eric Holder. Poor sap was taken to the cleaners by a limousine liberal princess.
A ring given in anticipation of marriage must be returned at break up
It’s not just the law....why would one want to keep such an intimate gift if you aren’t getting married?
If he refuses to pay for it the creditors can sue both him and her since she has an item not paid for and I wonder what the IRS might say about her getting such an asset in terms of income(since the wedding is off) without paying a “gift tax” on it? It might be worth an audit...anyway.
Jersey therapeutic remedy: If the guy is really feeling bad then his friends should put him a chair with a good bottle of Scotch, play “Walk like a man” by the Four Seasons, make sure he listens carefully to the lyrics and then take him out to party. Things are much better by the following afternoon.
It is settled law. You however are incorrect. It is a contract...I give you a ring in exchange for a promise to marry me. You don’t marry me you have broken the contract and hence the ring must be returned
It is settled law. You however are incorrect. It is a contract...I give you a ring in exchange for a promise to marry me. You don’t marry me you have broken the contract and hence the ring must be returned
If the agreed-upon event does not occur or the agreed-upon condition is not met, then the gift-giver has the right to get the gift back. The majority of courts classify engagement rings as a conditional gift, and award the engagement ring to the giver in broken engagement cases.
Technically, it is a “conditional gift,” not a contract.
Maybe that’s why the X didnt give it back.
my kid worked in jewelry. These young men come in to get a ring....they are brought back by the fiancee the next DAY for an upgrade. I think it’s horrible.
There are generally three ways that courts can classify engagement rings, either as outright gifts that cannot be revoked, as conditional gifts that are dependent upon completion of a marriage ceremony, or as compensation (which cannot be returned).
Treating Engagement Rings as a Gift
The law generally requires three elements for an item to be considered a gift that cannot be revoked:
The giver’s intent to give the item as a gift;
The giver’s actual giving of the gift to the receiver; and
The receiver’s acceptance of the gift.
In most cases involving revoked gifts (where all three requirements were shown), courts have held that the item involved was a gift, and the receiver got to keep the item.
Treating Engagement Rings as Conditional Gifts
A conditional gift is one which is based on some future event or action taking place. If the event doesn’t occur, then the gift-giver has the right to get the gift back. Most courts classify engagement rings as a conditional gift and award the engagement ring to the giver in broken engagement cases.
However, the receiver of the ring may argue that answering the proposal was the condition required and that the condition was met. This doesn’t usually work. Courts typically reject the idea that the gift’s condition is the engagement, and hold instead that the condition to be met is the marriage. This is usually a no-fault approach, meaning that it doesn’t matter which party is responsible for the broken engagement; if the condition is not met for whatever reason, then the gift must be returned.
Most western states follow the no-fault, conditional gift approach and award the engagement ring to the giver in a broken engagement. A few states, like Montana, classify the engagement ring as an unconditional gift and award the ring to the receiver in broken engagements.
Treating Engagement Rings as Compensation
There have been cases where a ring can qualify as compensation, as long as both parties understood that the ring was being given as compensation. For example, in one case, a woman had given her fiancé money and even labor to improve his business. In exchange for her money and labor, he gave her a valuable diamond ring and proposed marriage. The relationship ended in a broken engagement, and the court awarded the diamond ring to the woman because the diamond ring was given to her as compensation.
Engagement Ring Laws: Fault-Based Approaches
Some courts hold that it isn’t fair for the person who caused the broken engagement to keep the engagement ring. This approach is called “fault-based” and if the receiver causes the broken engagement, the engagement ring will be awarded to the giver.
For instance, in Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, a couple was engaged. The man bought her house, two cars, and a diamond ring in anticipation of marriage. He also lent her $5,000 to buy her own business. The woman disappeared, only to resurface later having used the funds to buy a business in another city and marry another man. The court ordered all of the gifts, including the engagement ring that the man had given to her, to be given back to him.
I hope he gets it back and the lesson I take away from all this is one, don’t get married, and two, if you do; just give a placeholder ring of low actual value until a point in the marriage one feels it’s for real and going to last.
YMMV, FWIW, JMHO.
An idiot and a whore. When she issued “must have” ring requirements, he should have laughed and walked. And for him to marry a lawyer??? Freaking insane.
Granted that this is only one side of the story but why on earth did he stay with her?
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.