EXPERT NEEDED FOR DUMB GUY: Not so simple broken engagement. Ring? Loan? Gift?

[LWJ_08]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Purchased in California. State of residency and location for ending an engagement is HI.

First, thank you all in advance for your expertise during this stressful period in my life.

State Law. I purchased the engagement ring in CA and ended the engagement HI.
-Which state's law will apply to settling financial disputes?

Engagement Ring, Loan, Gift. I'm an idiot; the engagement ring costs as much as a new car. The only saving face is that I didn't take a loan out due to some lucky investments. Thus, small claims court is sadly not an option. I also "loaned" her (I said), "gift" (she said), another amount of money greater than small claims court allowance. I know, I'm double the idiot but luckily it was cash on hand due to the aforementioned investments. I have evidence supporting the engagement ring value and the amount of the "loan".
-Can I combine both amounts into a single lawsuit?
-Can I obtain text message records from my cellular company within the last six months ago that may have evidence of "loan" versus "gift"?

Reasons for ending engagement. I ended it for three reasons and it's NOT due to infidelity on either party: arguing, negativity, and "something" else that potentially has criminal implications for her. I do not want to see her get arrested but suspect I may have to state the "something" in a lawsuit. The "something" is the primary reason for ending the engagement. Also, I have evidence regarding the three reasons mentioned above. Lastly, we have both initiated the end of our engagement in the past six months, and sadly got back together again.
-What other legitimate reasons, besides "infidelity", must the purchaser of the ring prove in court when applicable to certain state laws?

Therapy. We have spent ample time with two relationship counselors in the past year, mainly one of them, trying to fix our relationship. The second couselor is aware of why I ended the engagement. The first counselor we could not discuss the "something" due to legal reporting obligations. The second counselor did not have this obligation so he is fully aware of our problems.
-Can I subpoena or obtain any notes he may have on our counseling sessions since they could be used as evidence?

In summary, I make poor financial decisions and appreciate your insight. On principle, I am determined to get some money back, preferably simply the ring. Lastly, I've left out the state, "loan"/"gift" item, and "something" in case she's googling these same questions. I know, I'm paranoid, but I look forward to moving past this emotional state with your help. Thanks in advance.

-W

 

[FlyingRon]

You need to tell us what the state that is not California is. The law on this subject varies from state to state and depends on where the parties currently are more than anything else.
Some states consider engagement rings strictly a gift. The recipient has control of them once they are given, regardless of any implicit agreement to marry.
Other states consider these gifts conditional on going through with the marriage.

 

[LWJ_08]

It's the 808 state

Area Code 808. Well hopefully the title avoids the first page of a google search.

Mahalo!

 

[stealth2]

Area Code 808. Well hopefully the title avoids the first page of a google search.

Mahalo!

Please do not expect the volunteers here to spend their time searching the state with that area code (like Mahalo didn't make it clear you're in Hawaii). If it's important enough to you? Consult with an attorney.

 

[LWJ_08]

Hawaii

Duly noted. I wasted your time; it won't happen again.

-W

 

[FlyingRon]

I don't see any Hawaii case law on engagement rings specifically, but there is a general sense in the case law that gifts are only conditional when explicitly made as such, so I suspect you may be out of luck if you have to pursue this in court. Nothing prohibits you from trying to convince her that giving you the ring back in the right thing to do or perhaps that you should split it's value.

 

[single317dad]

I have evidence supporting the engagement ring value

I have a feeling you have evidence supporting the original cost of the engagement ring, which is vastly different than the value of the ring. You're lucky to get 25% of the original retail value at resale -- in many cases much less than that.

Like the DeBeers ads say: "A Diamond is Forever", but its value barely traverses the Exit sign!

 

[Ohiogal]

Found one case which is still good case law even though it is over 120 years old:



Ayers v. Mahuka, 8 Haw. 544 (Hawai'i 1892)
Supreme Court of Kingdom of Hawai'i
November 23, 1892
8 Haw. 544


Prove she doesn't want to be engaged. The ring should come back.

 

[Zigner]

Found one case which is still good case law even though it is over 120 years old:



Ayers v. Mahuka, 8 Haw. 544 (Hawai'i 1892)
Supreme Court of Kingdom of Hawai'i
November 23, 1892
8 Haw. 544


Prove she doesn't want to be engaged. The ring should come back.

There is no Kingdom of Hawai'l - how can it be good case law? (Not trying to be snarky )

 

[Proserpina]

There is no Kingdom of Hawai'l - how can it be good case law? (Not trying to be snarky )

That's a valid point actually...

 

[LdiJ]

There is no Kingdom of Hawai'l - how can it be good case law? (Not trying to be snarky )

Hawaii didn't even become a territory of the US until 1898, and not a state until 1959.

 

[FlyingRon]

My lexis access certainly doesn't go back that far. But it used to be that you couldn't get too close to the chief, walk in his footsteps or let your shadow touch the royal ground, except on penalty of death. The defense to this was to make it to puuhonua where you could get a kahuna to absolve you.

 

[Ohiogal]

Well if there is no state law contradicting it and no case law... it is still good. LOL. It bears argument at least.

 

[Zigner]

Well if there is no state law contradicting it and no case law... it is still good. LOL. It bears argument at least.

Fair enough

 

[LdiJ]

Well if there is no state law contradicting it and no case law... it is still good. LOL. It bears argument at least.

Come on OG...that is a major stretch...LOL.

That is like trying to make the argument that a specific British Court decision prior to 1770 was still good law in the continental US...because there was nothing contradicting it and no new case law. Yeah, if somebody wanted to be really intrepid it could be argued, but to what result?

Yes, English common law is argued in states that adopted English common law, and the Napoleonic Code is argued in states that adopted the Napoleonic Code, but that is because the law has continued based on English common law and the Napoleonic Code in general terms, and there is plenty of case law to back that up...AFTER the formulation of the US and establishment of state constitutions...and courts.

Hawaii would be more along the lines of Alaska. Alaska belonged to Russia before it belonged to the US. It would be interesting to see someone attempting to claim that a Russian court decision was still "good law" because of a Russian case prior to Alaska becoming a US territory.