Engagement Ring

[Jacki-Pyle556]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
CA
My ex wants the engagement ring back but when we got into the fight that broke us up I threw them in the lake? So he says he is taking me to court and I have to pay him for them

 

[tuffbrk]

A gift in the form of an engagement ring would not be given unless for the promise of a future marriage. There is a statute in the California Civil Code 1590 that addresses this type of gift.

According to the statute, the circumstances surrounding the breakup determine the proper owner of the engagement ring. The "giver" may recover the ring or the value of the ring if the "receiver" refuses to enter into marriage. The "giver" also has a right to recover the ring if the contemplated marriage is abandoned by mutual consent.

Although not explicitly stated in the statute, subsequent case law has determined that the "receiver" of the engagement ring is entitled to keep the ring if the "giver" refuses to enter the marriage without any fault of the "receiver." Therefore, if the "giver" is the one who backs out of the wedding, then the "giver" does not have the right to get the engagement ring back.

 

[ecmst12]

Tell him to learn to swim.

 

[Zigner]

Tell him to learn to swim.

That may not be the best advice. If the OP broke this off, then the OP likely needs to return the rings (or the value thereof.)

 

[antrc170]

Tell him to learn to swim.

Not only is it not the best advice, it's likely the wrong advice. Tuff did a good job of explaining that CA has this type of situation well covered by statute and case law. If the she broke it off or it was a mutual break up, then the ring or value of is to be returned. If he broke it off and there are no complications (like she was cheating) then she may be in clear.

 

[ecmst12]

Until she's actually served with something, she can absolutely tell him to jump in the lake. If he DOES actually sue, she can cross that bridge (heh) when it happens.

 

[Zigner]

Until she's actually served with something, she can absolutely tell him to jump in the lake. If he DOES actually sue, she can cross that bridge (heh) when it happens.

I love the allegorical immersion you are showing...

 

[tuffbrk]

giggle, giggle

 

[ecmst12]

Mondays need a little humor

 

[xylene]

Until she's actually served with something, she can absolutely tell him to jump in the lake. If he DOES actually sue, she can cross that bridge (heh) when it happens.

Good way to hold on to the bitterness of a failed relationship and have it drawn out into a public court spectacle needlessly.

 

[ecmst12]

Well it's a bit late for her to have NOT thrown the ring in the lake...

 

[xylene]

Well it's a bit late for her to have NOT thrown the ring in the lake...

It isn't too late for her to pony up for her immature theatrics.

 

[ecmst12]

And we don't know if she should, we know nothing about the cause of the breakup or whose fault it was, so she certainly shouldn't pony up for anything until a court has found her liable for it.

 

[Zigner]

And we don't know if she should, we know nothing about the cause of the breakup or whose fault it was, so she certainly shouldn't pony up for anything until a court has found her liable for it.

That's just not true. Sure, WE don't know the details, but SHE does. SHE can determine for herself if she is legally liable for this amount. Why bother with the time and effort related to a court proceeding if one knows it's a losing proposition?

 

[ecmst12]

I suppose it depends if she thinks the case is arguable or not. If she knows it was her fault and she's going to lose, then sure, save the time and expense of a trial.