He probably got off cheap, and should chalk this learning experience up to renting instead of buying.
Be high maintenance
Any guy who would listen to her demands for the size diamond she wanted should be glad to be rid of her. She sounds like a bitch and he sounds like an idiot.
I believe this is settled law. It is a gift and she gets to keep it.
Rule is once you give it to her, its hers. If the engagement is broken before there was a marriage, the guy when he cools off ultimately realizes he got off cheap and was very lucky at that. Fagettabawt the ring.
since the article isn’t viewable without registering, could you summarize the part that wasn’t posted in your own words?
That should have been a warning sign ...
This idiot did not see this as big trouble??
I got lavender jade. Technically only semi-precious but I like it and it did not break the bank. He protested that he should spend three month's salary on the ring. I told him that was silly when we could be using that money for a house payment.
Oh and yes, she should give it back if she is a decent person. Which she probably isn't.
$9,000/mo isnt so high for a quality hooker these days.
er, I mean ‘escort’...
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 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.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t hire someone stupid enough to buy jewelry retail.
I dated a woman who wore an engagement ring from her ex-fiancée on our first date...like a normal piece of jewelry.
When I asked why she still had it, she replied it was “a normal custom” for the woman to keep the ring.
I never saw her again...and dodged a bullet.
He can sue all he wants but it’s been proven time and again that an engagement ring is a gift from the would be groom to the would be bride. Sorry, he loses.