If you say "no', why you should be able to keep an expensive token of my affection?

I think the OP meant if the woman says yes and then changed her mind should she keep the ring. That makes more sense.

Now, to my somehow related story. ;)

In Italy it is the custom for the groom's family to buy the "wedding gold''. In my case I got a gorgeous 18 karat set of a bracelet, necklace, brooch, earrings, wedding band, and an engagement ring with a very tiny rock. After I divorced him 5 years later for chronic cheating he asked that I give him back the set because ''my parents bought it''. I told him I would return the set if he returned to my parents all the cash and other gifts my parents gave HIM. He shut up after that.
 

"The second exception is if the conditions surrounding the giving of the ring indicate that it was a true gift versus giving an engagement ring. For example, if you gave the ring to the potential bride at Christmas or on her birthday, she may be able to argue that the ring was not an engagement ring, but a Christmas present or a birthday present. "
https://www.dbnylaw.com/articles/engagement-rings/



"Special days: If an engagement ring is given on a special day such as a birthday, Valentine's Day, Christmas, etc., many courts will not require the engagement ring to be returned. "
https://www.thespruce.com/engagement-ring-laws-2303752
 

Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
I was watching TV, and there was a story about a woman, who created a ensemble (?) ring, pendant, earrings out of all the diamond engagement rings she received as requests for marriage. I thought- what!! she kept the engagements rings?????
Turns out this is considered proper etiquette. Keeping diamond engagement rings is perfectly acceptable. As a very cheap male, I don't like that policy. If I'm forking over my heart and hard earned money to buy you an engagement ring,; and you say "no". Then you should return the ring, regardless of policy. I don't understand why you should be able to keep an expensive token of my affection. What do you feel?
Click to expand...
Ah come on. If you fall in love again would you like to give your new partner a second hand ring?

Goodbye is good bye to everything.
 
Ruth n Jersey said:
This happened to me and I gave back the ring. One of my aunts made a collection of them. She had the diamonds set all in one ring. If a person commented on the ring she would point out which diamond was from who. I was very young but even then thought that was a horrible thing to do.
Click to expand...
Wow kind of on notice. I would say "goodbye it's been nice to know you."
 
win231 said:
I've never understood that tradition. If a woman loves a guy enough to spend her life with him, why should he have to bribe her with jewelry?
Click to expand...
Hey, in other cultures sometimes the guy has to give her parents a set amount of animals, or the woman's family has to give animals to the guy. In Italy when my mother got married the woman's family was supposed to provide a dowry or at least a trusseau (spell?). The dowry was especially common in many cultures, with wealthy people it would also include lands. In some cultures (Indians in the northwest USA) the bride's family had to provide and pay for feasts that would last for DAYS, sometimes bankrupting the father.
 
Last edited:
Kaila said:
If you gave someone a house, and then later, they didn't want you to live with them there any more,
would it legally still be theirs to keep?:oops:
Click to expand...
You pose some VERY interesting questions. Here's another seemingly unrelated anecdote.

I knew several decades back two lesbians who were crazy in love with each other. One owned her house and decided to add her lover to the deed as a token of her love. Not long after, the lover found someone else and moved in with them and the rejected lover had to sell her house to pay the other her ''legal'' half.
 
I don't know the details of who broke up with who, but , on TV, the woman took 5 engagement rings and used the stones to make her earrings, etc. When I googled about who gets to keep the ring, this is what came up:
Image result for who gets to keep an engagement ring
The ring is kept by the recipient, even if the marriage never occurs and no matter who broke the engagement. Once the marriage occurs, most states view the gifting of the ring as complete. In the event of a divorce, the recipient of the ring is entitled to keep the gift.Feb 7, 2018

Personally, if I gave some one an expensive engagement ring, And my "beloved" said, "no", I'd want the ring back.
 
Bah! I would never give a prospective marital partner ANYTHING until I knew we were definitely getting married! No knee bending, question asking and ring presenting, for me. As best I remember, I knew my two upcoming marriage ceremonies were done deals before I gave the ladies the rings. Those imbeciles who proposed to the diamond collector deserved what they got!
 
Kaila said:
The law is interesting.
Are any other expensive gifts considered that way? As an assumed condition of something else?:rolleyes:

Such as, a car? Or a house?

If you gave someone a car, and then they broke off the (unmarried) relationship, they could keep it, right?
What if the car was an "engagement gift" :unsure:

If you gave someone a house, and then later, they didn't want you to live with them there any more,
would it legally still be theirs to keep?:oops:
Click to expand...
The difference is, the house or car would be legally titled to them. In which case, they OWN it and would be required to pay taxes/registration/whatever on the property.
 
C'est Moi said:
So you've never been married then?
Click to expand...
Yes, I was married for 4 years - 37 years ago. I gave her a $2,400.00 ring because it was traditional & she expected it; not because I thought it was right.
Question: Why doesn't a woman have to bribe the man with an expensive item?
 
911 said:
But, you do know there are exceptions to this law in CA, right?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of any exceptions, but now that you mention it, I can think of some situations where there would be exceptions.
I got my info about CA law from watching small-claims court cases where the woman kept the ring (or sold it) after she broke off the engagement & the judge always awarded the judgement to the man.
 
win231 said:
Yes, I was married for 4 years - 37 years ago. I gave her a $2,400.00 ring because it was traditional & she expected it; not because I thought it was right.
Question: Why doesn't a woman have to bribe the man with an expensive item? And, by the way, do you have an answer to the original question?
Click to expand...
 
PVC said:
Hey, in other cultures sometimes the guy has to give her parents a set amount of animals, or the woman's family has to give animals to the guy. In Italy when my mother got married the woman's family was supposed to provide a dowry or at least a trusseau (spell?). The dowry was especially common in many cultures, with wealthy people it would also include lands. In some cultures (Indians in the northwest USA) the bride's family had to provide and pay for feasts that would last for DAYS, sometimes bankrupting the father.
Click to expand...

"Feasts that last for days?" I'd call that "Prenuptial Indigestion."
 
Duh?
There are questions posed here that involve emotions-there is no right or wrong when emotions are involved.
Each aggrieved party wants what, revenge, a cure for their own stupidity in expecting the other party
to 'do the right thing.'
They should be thankful they 'found out in time.' Naw, that don't work either,
Rejection, when you have invested emotional content and every thing goes south, hurts, hurts for a long, long time.
 
Last edited:
win231 said:
I wasn't aware of any exceptions, but now that you mention it, I can think of some situations where there would be exceptions.
I got my info about CA law from watching small-claims court cases where the woman kept the ring (or sold it) after she broke off the engagement & the judge always awarded the judgement to the man.
Click to expand...
I know of 2 exceptions, which would also apply to an annulment, but in this case, it’s pre marriage. The way that I understand the CA law is that if the man, while engaged, has definitive proof that the fiancé was unfaithful or with another man’s child w/o advising the groom-to-be, the engagement may be cancelled and the ring must be returned, if he requests it.

If you have a resource to check with on this and are able to confirm it, please let us know. I never intentionally post unreliable laws.
 
win231 said:
Yes, I was married for 4 years - 37 years ago. I gave her a $2,400.00 ring because it was traditional & she expected it; not because I thought it was right.
Question: Why doesn't a woman have to bribe the man with an expensive item?
Click to expand...
Such a dumb question. No one "has" to "bribe" anyone. I would have married my husband whether he gave me a ring or not. You always seem so unhappy and jaded.
 
Documentary of PBS

In India, grooming the son to marry a lady with a substantial dowry, then killing the new bride was depicted as a family business.
India is rated #1, in the purchase of gold. The Ladies gold jewelry is hers, exclusively hers. If her
marriage fails for any reason she retains all her personal jewelry.
The original dowry belongs to the groom if the bride dies, (murdered, in these cases) BUT the gold
who gets her personal jewelry? The brides family feels it belongs to them, the groom's family view it as theirs.

There has to be a history of dispute, killing the bride for the gold jewelry; however, the program only dealt with the present.

(The history: how long has this event existed; when did the accumulation of gold as a female's exclusive
property exist. There has to be a long, involved history as to how this cultural value has existed and WHY!)

The program states this is the reason for India being the #1, gold importer in the world; but neglected to
explain the history of this situation.
The conflict arises when the lady is killed ,(dies) the groom's family says the gold jewelry belongs to them as she 'died' while a spouse of the groom. of natural causes.

The bride's family alleges 'You'll killed her, the gold belonged to her and as she is our daughter, the goal should be
the property of the family of origin.
They showed one bride's family taking the groom's family to court: the court found, Yep, the groom's family
were all involved in killing the bride for the gold.

It's a family business, don't you know! The program only dealt with brides that had died (murdered) shorty after
marriage. The brides that lived a natural life span were not examined.

What we would call a mom and pop store, with one enterprize, one goal:
'Our goal is to 'get the gold. (gott'a be a pun in here somewhere)

Kind'a of eerie

Went to wikipedia
2010, there were ,8391 dower deaths in India, no mention of the brides gold
 
Last edited:
C'est Moi said:
Such a dumb question. No one "has" to "bribe" anyone. I would have married my husband whether he gave me a ring or not. You always seem so unhappy and jaded.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO!! B-B-B-But....since he did give you a ring, you really can't say whether you would have married him without one.
Most likely, you'd have said what most women would say: "Well, I don't see a ring."
And, I can see why you don't like the question......
 
Interesting thread, which I just read, beginning to end. I am hardly an expert on this subject, but my understanding has always been that whoever turns down, or breaks off, the engagement, allows the other party to keep the ring.

Of course, the word "allows" is pretty vague. Legally, I have a feeling that possession is 9/10 of the law. How can someone be forced to turn over a ring?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top