Engaged couple splits up, man sues woman for engagement ring, $16K

[storm rider]

All I can say is the guy is an IDIOT if he spent 16 grand of his hard earned money on a fucking ring that contains less than a ounce of gold and a few stones that were wildly over valued.Jewlerly is the biggest
fucking sham to be foisted upon society with it's 1000% mark up.As for promising a kidney he is even more stupid as that has a value of $50,000 in a country like China LOL.

As for me I ended up with my engagement ring I was given as well as the 1 year anniversary pinky ring.Not the wedding band though as I slapped it down on the kitchen table and told the ex to shove it up her ass.

I did not sell them or pawn them I just kept them and one day inspiration struck as I was heading out to play a round of golf and I took them with me.Upon reaching a specific tee box I teed up those 2 rings and asked another guy if I could borrow his sand wedge.The 3 other guys I was playing the round with looked at me like I was crazy and the guy who lent me his sand wedge(I did not wish to tarnish my own sand wedge) said"why dont you take them to a pawn shop" to which I replied "why would I want to sell them for less than scrap gold value with no consideration for the stones and take the kind of money offered to a crack head and then have the pawn shop sell them for 5 X what they paid for them and thusly profit off of me".I then said I would get much more satisfaction by plinking those 2 rings into a waterhole on a golf course that I liked and knowing that they would lay in the bottom of that waterhole for eternity and thusly giving me absolute total motivation to never put a golf ball in that waterhole for the rest of my life was far more valuable to me than any monetary value of those rings.Not to mention it would REALLY piss of my ex LOL.


SR

 

[chilli]

an engagement ring is given with the expectation if marriage... You get to keep the engagement ring as long as you are engaged...(or married)... No engagement, no wedding, no ring!!!

It's nice to see that at least one woman on this board has a sense of right from wrong.

 

[Cami Parker]

Aww, I'm sure I'm not the only one, I just have very strong opinions and am very vocal about them... A bigger mouth than others, if you will...
But thank you!

It's nice to see that at least one woman on this board has a sense of right from wrong.

 

[Blonde Brynn]

I'm very torn by this. In my mind, morally and ethically, there is no question; return the ring. Steal an old pair of his tighty-whities if you need a twisted relationship trophy.

From a legal standpoint, though, I have tremendous difficulty with the concept that, by accepting an engagement ring, a woman is accepting payment for (in other words, selling herself into) a marriage contract.

Why must there be such nuance to trouble my girl-brain so....

 

[normisanas]

From a legal standpoint, though, I have tremendous difficulty with the concept that, by accepting an engagement ring, a woman is accepting payment for (in other words, selling herself into) a marriage contract.

Good point. It's an unusual contract, and I don't think there's anything like it. What other contract binds both parties to marriage on her acceptance of his ring? Let's not forget a couple of things though: 1) she is doing it of her own free will, even if it smacks of selling oneself as a woman, and 2) the law would be just as binding if she gave the ring and he was the one accepting on condition of marriage.

I personally think the one-way ring thing sucks. If it were me and the ideal partner, it would be a two-way ring exchange...... right before I bend her over and drill her to seal the deal.

 

[Poseidon]

You know I always hated the traditions of marriage and the wedding ring, and wedding contracts.

If you really love each other, there shouldn't be something monetary such as a ring to symbolize it. Call me old fashioned but nothing should symbolize your bond except your affections for one another.

 

[Blonde Brynn]

Good point. It's an unusual contract, and I don't think there's anything like it. What other contract binds both parties to marriage on her acceptance of his ring? Let's not forget a couple of things though: 1) she is doing it of her own free will, even if it smacks of selling oneself as a woman, and 2) the law would be just as binding if she gave the ring and he was the one accepting on condition of marriage.

I personally think the one-way ring thing sucks. If it were me and the ideal partner, it would be a two-way ring exchange...... right before I bend her over and drill her to seal the deal.

I just doubt that most women see themselves as doing so. I know if it were phrased to me in such a way I would flatly refuse.

You know I always hated the traditions of marriage and the wedding ring, and wedding contracts.

If you really love each other, there shouldn't be something monetary such as a ring to symbolize it. Call me old fashioned but nothing should symbolize your bond except your affections for one another.

The ring is stupid, but the contract can be essential for legal reasons, such as pensions, health benefits, power of attorney, inheritance, adoption, taxes, visitation rights, health decisions for an unresponsive patient, etc.

 

[Poseidon]

I just doubt that most women see themselves as doing so. I know if it were phrased to me in such a way I would flatly refuse.



The ring is stupid, but the contract can be essential for legal reasons, such as pensions, health benefits, power of attorney, inheritance, adoption, taxes, visitation rights, health decisions for an unresponsive patient, etc.

Actually if you live with your better half for 2 years in BC you are considered common law spouse and don't need to get married. I would probably test out the waters and live with her for a few years before even considering marriage.

 

[VanessaofBC]

Not to argue, but this is from wikipedia

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring

An engagement ring is a ring indicating that the person wearing it is engaged to be married, especially in Western cultures. In the United Kingdom, Ireland and North America, engagement rings are traditionally worn only by women, and rings can feature diamonds or other gemstones. In other cultures men and women wear matching rings. In some cultures, engagement rings are also used as wedding rings.
Conventionally, the woman's ring is presented as a betrothal gift by a man to his prospective spouse while he proposes marriage or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal. It represents a formal agreement to future marriage.
In North America, Ireland and the United Kingdom, it is customarily worn on the left hand ring finger, though customs vary across the world.
Before agreeing to marry, a couple may choose to buy and wear pre-engagement rings, also called promise rings. After marrying, the couple may wear both engagement rings and wedding rings, or if they prefer, only the wedding rings. Some brides have their engagement and wedding rings permanently soldered together after marriage.

Rings are placed on the fourth finger on the left hand, because Ancient Greeks believed that it contained a vein that led to the heart (vena amoris). Romans believed the ring to be a symbol for ownership rather than love. It meant that the husband would claim his wife. In second century B.C., the Roman bride was given two rings, a gold one which she wore in public, and one made of iron, which she could wear at home while doing house chores.[2]

Hmmmm.....

 

[peter griffin]

my understanding has always been if the bride to be ends the engagement she should return the ring and if the groom to be ends it then she shouldn't. but when things go south too many people become vindictive and fight about material things just to one up the other.

 

[Poseidon]

Not to argue, but this is from wikipedia

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring




Hmmmm.....

Damn Romans, they are the ones to blame for this mess.

 

[VanessaofBC]

from wiki:

Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. This reflects the ring's role as a form of compensation for the woman's damaged reputation

In most states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."

 

[normisanas]

but when things go south too many people become vindictive and fight about material things just to one up the other.

And if the ring was worth $100? Would she be keeping it then? I doubt it, at least she'd be giving that up much more readily, especially if summoned to court over it.

 

[Jump Jack Flash]

He called a hooker on one of the channels. Anybody recognize her as an sp?

 

[luvsdaty]

I'd say that he got off lucky, considering how much weddings cost nowadays. Personally, been there, done that & I didn't want the ring back. Just chalked it up as another chapter in my life. Got on the computer and started checking out sp's not long after.
Never gave it much thought after that.

 

[Cami Parker]

:deadhorse::violin::deadhorse:
GIVE THE MAN HIS RING BACK FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!