A fight over a $70,000 engagement ring has made its way to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
The question at hand? Who gets to keep the ring when an engagement is called off?
It’s supposed to be a symbol of love and commitment, but now the $70,000 engagement ring has become a bitter battle between a former couple in a case that has made its way to the state’s high court.
oh that's easy. if the ex-groom bought the ring, it's his ring. she has to return it.
ReplyDeletean engagement ring is a contract, and if she fails to hold up her end of the contract, she doesn't get to keep the ring.
No pity for the man who spends THAT much on baubles and frippery.
ReplyDeleteNo more calls, We have a winner!
Delete-lg
IFIAK, it's pretty dang simple. If he calls it off, she keeps the ring. If she calls it off, she gives it back. Not hard, expect people are stupid, inconsistent, and generally fools.
ReplyDeleteThat was part of the purpose of the ring - it's valuable enough that if he leaves her pregnant, she can hock it and at least sustain herself for a little while. And valuable enough that he can't be seeing multiple girls because he can't afford two rings.
John G.
That's a pretty common sense answer I think. Not so sure about the ring as pregnancy or fidelity insurance but otherwise you're spot on.
DeleteThat's the way it works... gotta be sure before you give it to someone...
DeleteImplicit is contractual obligation. While a verbal contract is as binding as a written contract, ya have to at least say it.
ReplyDeleteShe broke the contract. But he didn't spell it out. Etiquette says to return the ring. Rule of law says she keeps it as his gift to her.
Anyway. Pretty foolish to spend big on a whiffle ball.
Okay, I read the article. He broke it off. However, that doesn't change my position.
DeleteThe ring is also his promise to marry her ... since he broke the contract, he forfeits the ring (not sure if that's what you meant or not).
DeleteIn most legal jurisdictions, he gets the ring back. Backing out of the contract is not the issue. Why he backed out probably is. And courts don't want to get that deep into it. The basic rule is that he gets the ring back. Plenty of court rulings on this.
DeleteI do mean he forfeits.
DeleteBy what legal standard would he get the ring back? He broke the contract. He gave her the ring.
$70,000 for a ring just to get laid? The stupid dude could’a added another $10 grand and got himself a 2025 full equipped Dodge Ram.
ReplyDeleteYet,he would still have nothing of value.
DeleteTMF Bert
Well, there's stupid - as in buying a $70k engagement ring - and then there's really stupid. Buying the new Ram qualifies as the latter. And in the interest of equal opportunity bashing, GM and Ford trucks are shit now, too.
DeleteBetween the outrageous price tags, the massive recalls (for Ford anyway) and the general lack of durability and reliability, they should all be ashamed of themselves.
I'm just waiting to see which brand goes tango uniform first.
They all turned to shit when bench seats disappeared unless by special order.
DeleteTMF Bert; LMAO - Had Dodges; never again.
DeleteElectrical systems made by Lucas, I think.
CC
You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
DeleteThey throw everything, including the kitchen sink, onto trucks these days making them absolutely unaffordable. No, I don't want self-driving. I also don't want 17 backup cameras and associated computers. I don't want phone home capability. I don't want an entertainment center. I want to be able to reliably go from point A to point B; possibly over muddy dirt roads. I also want to carry stuff in the bed in back.
The Toyota HiLux is a barebones pickup for between $10K and $12K -- and we'll never see it in the United States. Instead we'll get a bunch of electronic crap that lasts a maximum of five years -- and a price tag of about $20K a year of active life of the vehicle.
I am of the thought that 70k for any ring is stupid unless you are swimming in it..... As far as who gets to keep it, my thoughts are it was an engagement ring and if they are no longer engaged, without the marriage ceremony, then the contract is broken and it should be returned. That way he can hock it and get back some of his money and hopefully he learned a lesson
ReplyDeleteJD
Either way, it's a stupid tax.
ReplyDeleteJudge Wapner ruled definitively on this issue in the People's Court years ago. The ring was given in anticipation of marriage, and must be returned. Rusty, his bailiff, nodded in agreement, and Doug Llewelyn made his usual snide remarks to the jilted bride as she left the courtroom..
ReplyDeleteThis is the creature he bought a 70k ring for:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.enterprisenews.com/story/news/2011/01/21/state-soccer-coaches-hall-fame/40193764007/
Or at least it's the only "Caroline Settino" I could find in Massachusetts.
Some details I found on Google:
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/engagement-ring-debate-breakup
https://www.ocbar.org/All-News/News-View/ArticleId/6554/November-2023-Millar-s-JurisDiction-Disengagement
https://www.brides.com/massachusetts-court-battle-70k-engagement-ring-8703175
From that picture, all I can think is she must cook a fantastic breakfast (though not a $70,000 one). I can't see any other attraction.
DeletePhil B
Whoa! $7k is way over the top for that british looking filly, let alone freakin' $70k. Poor dude prolly in hock for it too, best he can hope for is to sell it and cover the balance. That shit is way marked up too, value won't be worth nearly $70k, and that is where the word schmuck came from...
DeleteIf this is the first woman he ever got with and he DOES get it back, he needs to invest about half of what he gets out of it in hookers and blow, that will fix him better forever than that sloppy looking broad ever could. (Shudder)
First thing that I noticed is that this post has so far gotten the most comments, by far. That means that it struck a bunch of nerves with your readers, Wirecutter. But those describing the purchase as too extravagant need to put things in perspective.
ReplyDeleteA man making $20,000 a year who spends $1,000 on an engagement ring is spending a pretty big chunk of change when you look at how large of a % of his income he spent. A man in Massachusetts who makes $400,000 a year, with several million dollars in investments and other various things who spends that $70,000 on an engagement ring is still spending a lot of cash, but we need to remember the cost of that ring compared to his wealth, and so it might not be that huge deal to him that it is for the average guy like most of us.
Still it is a large amount of money, and I understand the reason that there is a fight for it. We can also consider that financially the value of the ring is not as important to the man as the principle of the whole thing.
With all of that out of the way, I have to say that I have watched Judge Judy and while it is just a fancy reality show, I agree with what she has said. An engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage. If that marriage does not happen, no matter what the reason, then the giver of the ring, usually the man, should get the ring back. It is like you put a down payment on a house and then for some reason the sale falls through, you get your down payment back.
As an added note, you also could say that no man has ever gotten sex from a woman for free. In case of a divorce, if you pay child support or alimony, you just charged the sex on an imaginary credit card, and have to pay the bill when it comes due.
If not for the issue of morals and the law, it usually would have been cheaper to just go to a prostitute and pay upfront. That way there is no bill to pay later, unless you get the creepy crawlies from the hooker. That is the gift that keeps on giving.
Years ago there was a jewelry store in my area that ran an ad that went along the lines of her engagement ring should be equal to 6 months of the groom's salary or some shit like that.... Not sure how effective that ad was but it sounded totally assanine to me..
DeleteJD
In keeping with current Massachusetts values, the ring should be sold and the money
ReplyDeleteshould go towards the continued upkeep of their beloved "migrants".
If he broke off the engagement, it's hers - if she broke off the engagement, it's his. If she broke off the engagement and she tries to keep it, then she should be charged with Grand Theft.
ReplyDeleteIf he broke off the engagement when he discovered her infidelity, what then?
Delete- Sendarius
Having never shopped for an engagement ring, I'm not knowledgeable.
ReplyDeleteBut let's compromise here:
He keeps the rock(s),
She keeps the 'ringy' part without the jewels.
That way, she has something to remember this special time in her life. /sarc
Cubic Zirconia, because a BJ isn't worth $70K. Idiot.
ReplyDelete- WDS
Apparently she loves the ring more than him. If she loves you guys she will treasure whatever ring you can afford without going into debt.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is obvious : He should retract his calling it off. He should renew his offer to marry her immediately ... then she would call it off ... and he gets the ring back. What could go wrong?
ReplyDeleteSo, she's claiming this is a gift? And we're all in agreement that the "gift" is valued at 70 grand. I suppose that since she is keeping a 70 grand gift, and there's no denying the price due to all this publicity, then she has no choice but to pony up the dough when the IRS comes knocking looking to collect on what she now owes them. They call it a gift tax. Pay up, Sis......
ReplyDelete