Heartbroken fiancee fought the law and the law won

Late last year we published an excerpt from our friend Robin’s book (So Sue Me, Jackass! Avoiding Legal Pitfalls That Can Come Back to Bite You at Work, at Home, and at Play) about who gets to keep the ring after a broken engagement. The lawerly response? “While common courtesy dictates that the ring should remain with the dumpee, the law in most jurisdictions dictates that if a ring is given in contemplation of marriage, the woman doesn’t take title to the ring until the marriage takes place. That means if the marriage doesn’t take place, the ring goes back to the giver.”

Now, if someone had said to us, okay, but what if the engagement is being called off because the guy cheated on the woman and she never wants to see his sorry face again? We’d have said these were extenuating circumstances: hells yeah she should keep the ring!

Which is why we’re just lowly advice columnists and someone else gets to be the judge. Because, as a judge recently ruled in a New York case, “Fault in the breakup of an engagement is irrelevant.” In other words, hand the ring over, sucker.

The plaintive in this case claimed she was “not ready” to hand the ring over as she was “still too heartbroken.” Which sounds a little shady to us — are you sure you don’t just like the way it sparkles on your finger? — but who are we to, er, judge. She also claimed she suffered “severe emotional distress” and demanded more than $100,000 from her ex. Now that we believe: we have definitely been through and witnessed some breakups that deserved $100K in compensation. Who hasn’t? Though we’re not sure that spending Daddy’s money on hiring some big bad lawyers to beat up on your ex is going to help you achieve closure.

Anyway, let this be a lesson to you ladies: Don’t get too attached to the big rock on your finger until you’ve both said your “I Do’s.” As for the men? Er, keep all your receipts, we guess.

[via thefrisky]


photo by stevendepolo