who is entitled to engagement ring?

[mary allen]

Two years ago, I broke off my engagement, my ex insisted I keep the ring. Months went by without contact, I sold the ring, later regretted the decision, and bought it back. Due to an emotional encounter last month, my ex now has posession of my ring. We had a verbal agreement two weeks ago via a phone conversation that he would make arrangements to return my ring, which he has not done. I also have my receipt from purchasing the ring back, and am curious if there are any laws regarding engagement rings when a marriage hasn't taken place. I have filed a claim against him, of course after notifying him of my intent, and now I need to know my rights before our court date. Thank you for your time.

 

[ALawyer]

Usually the giving of an engagement ring is a gift from the prospective groom to the prospective bride. Once made, that's the end -- it is hers.

Most states also have laws making such "gifts" unconditional to keep the courts from having to deal with ex-lovers' spite or nusiance cases -- in the scheme of things they are but trivial lawsuits -- "the Lord and the law have no anger greater than a woman spurned" sort of thing.


Here it looks as if he gave you a gift, then you were either dumb or decent enough to give it back as a gift to him. (That you sold it and paid for it back from a shop is irrelevant.) If so it would be his, unless he got it back by force or threats or fraud.


------------------
This is intended as general information only and NOT LEGAL ADVICE. You are not my client, and I have no obligation of any kind to you. To retain a lawyer, go to http://AttorneyPages.com

 

[mary allen]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ALawyer:
Usually the giving of an engagement ring is a gift from the prospective groom to the prospective bride. Once made, that's the end -- it is hers.

Most states also have laws making such "gifts" unconditional to keep the courts from having to deal with ex-lovers' spite or nusiance cases -- in the scheme of things they are but trivial lawsuits -- "the Lord and the law have no anger greater than a woman spurned" sort of thing.


Here it looks as if he gave you a gift, then you were either dumb or decent enough to give it back as a gift to him. (That you sold it and paid for it back from a shop is irrelevant.) If so it would be his, unless he got it back by force or threats or fraud.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>