tdh46
|
Joined: 1/7/2007
Msg: 1 | |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 6:23:58 PM | I just saw a very interesting case on court Tv. (I must be really bored to be watching that crap).
A man is in court suing his ex-fiancee for the return of the engagement ring he gave her. On the surface it seems like a very simple case but it's not. The lady in question was a very practical woman. She asked the guy how much money he made a year, figured out that he was supposed to spend 17500 on a engagement ring. Now she tells him that instead of spending that much on the ring, he should spend 5000 on the ring and give her the rest to help pay off her credit card. Says she did not want to come into the marriage with any debt.
This lady also asked him for a thousand dollars on their 4th date, says she wanted to make sure she could count on him before becoming too involved with him.
6 Months after being Engaged , she asked the guy to refurnish her house(because it's going to be their furniture after they get married) , The guy tells her no. She breaks off the engagement, Telling him he lacks vision and gets a restraining order because he asked her for his ring back. Now the guy is in court suing for not only the ring but also for the 12500 that he gave her as apart of the engagement to pay off her credit cards. Now these fact the lady in question quite readily admitted to in court. None of the above stated fact are in dispute.
Should he get the 12500 back along with the ring?
Is the lady in question a very logical , practical woman or should she be wearing a Miners helmet? | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 6:33:46 PM | | I think you must take responsibility for your self in these situations ... he was dumb enough to do it even after the first signal back in the first month of dating. so should he get all the money back, NO. But should someone be allowed to use you for your money. NO. He should be able to get some money back and I believe since she broke off the engagement then the ring should be returned. | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 6:43:18 PM | | I've seen this type of case before. As for the ring it all depends on how he gave it to her. If it was strictly as an engagement gift then yes he would get the ring back. Cause the ring was given with the intent of the couple to be married. However if the ring was given as a gift at lets say birthday or Christmas or something like that then it was a gift and she would be intitled to keep it. As far as the money goes........wow that's just weird i've never heard of that before she is definitly a gold digger there and that should have been this poor guys clue of what she was........where do women like this find men like that? | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 6:51:21 PM | Sorry to say this but an engagement ring can be legaly held as a contract.
She breeched it, she needs to give it back.
As far as the money he spent on her, it's a rough spot, it could be used as gifts, but if she was having him spend the money in agreement of her staying with him, then he kept his end of the bargain. Pretty stupid if you ask me. | |
|
tdh46
|
Joined: 1/7/2007
Msg: 7 | |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 6:56:06 PM | Actually the judge took about 5 minutes to dismiss the part of the case where he was trying to get his money back. even after the lady admitted that's what happened. The judge says he gave the money to her as a "gift" and that money can't be taken as a contemplation of a promise to marry.
I keep forgetting that a court room is not a place to go find anyone that uses common sense at times.
I think that's utter hogwash. | |
|
| |
*Tee*
|
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 9 | |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 7:20:17 PM | I definitely think the ring should be given back. As far as the money...I agree with Jersey. Sure it was wrong of her, but how stupid could he be, handing over that amount of money?
Not to mention, doesn't that give you a hint of what she's like if she's asking for 1000 bucks on their 4th date? I also can't believe that whole crap about determining how much to spend on an engagement ring, by how much he makes? WTF?
I feel sorry for the guy because it sure was an expensive lesson. In a perfect world he should get the money back but not in court..JMO | |
|
tdh46
|
Joined: 1/7/2007
Msg: 10 | |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 7:22:10 PM | Just to play devils advocate here. what if the lady in question was just a very practical woman who went about doing things a little different? I mean think about it. everything she did can be explained away quite logically.
She took money to pay off her credit cards instead of getting a over priced ring... Very practical. It's also quite admirable that she is not the type that wants to come into a new marriage with debt. Just one more stress issues a new marriage does not need.
Her asking the guy for 1000 dollars to see if she can count on him. Don't we all want to know we can depend on the person we are in a relationship with, when times get hard. Sure i might not have gone about it the same way but if it works for her. I am quite sure she has a history of using this method of testing future mates.
And the furniture thing. If they were going to be married and be using the same furniture, of course it might make sense him paying to furnish her house, with an eye towards their future.
You know just putting all this down on paper made me think i may have misjudged this woman. she might just be a very honest but misunderstood woman. She might be the type of lady that a man can turn over all his assets to without a worry in the world, knowing they will be building a future together. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 7:33:27 PM | I don't think I would have made the same judgment. When she negotiated the ring, she asked for the balance between the $5000 ring and what he originally proposed be used to pay off her bills not for her own piece of mind, but so that she would come to the marriage without debt. As the marriage is never taking place, the reason the money was extended no longer exists and it was given with the expectation that she would be his wife and it would be to his advantage that her mind was clear of financial worry.
An engagement ring and any other engagement present is given with the expectation of marriage. If a car is an engagement present wouldn't most people feel it appropriate to give it back, particularly if the woman calls off the wedding? And the furniture? If he had a problem with it, all she had to do was wait until after they were married and the furniture probably would not have been an issue. Kind of makes you wonder whether she ever intended to marry the man or what they were waiting for. | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 9:49:49 PM | Actually common sense has nothing to do with, The judge was right , the money was a GIFT, that cannot be disputed, the ring is another matter.
First thing the guy shouldn't get the ring back, nor should he get the $12,500.00 back, he ( assuming He's American) should of been indicted by the grand jury for stupidity , Any guy who would fork over a grand on a 4th date is either desperate, has no balls or just plain Stupid, he deserved it.
This woman is far from being practical, if she was, she wouldn't be in debt in the first place?(tells me she cant handle her finances) ......what was the $1000.00 to see if she could count on him? count on him for what, maybe being a moron
She's a gold digger who found a sap. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/1/2007 10:11:16 PM | Just to play devils advocate here. what if the lady in question was just a very practical woman who went about doing things a little different? I mean think about it. everything she did can be explained away quite logically.
She took money to pay off her credit cards instead of getting a over priced ring... Very practical. It's also quite admirable that she is not the type that wants to come into a new marriage with debt. Just one more stress issues a new marriage does not need.
Her asking the guy for 1000 dollars to see if she can count on him. Don't we all want to know we can depend on the person we are in a relationship with, when times get hard. Sure i might not have gone about it the same way but if it works for her. I am quite sure she has a history of using this method of testing future mates.
And the furniture thing. If they were going to be married and be using the same furniture, of course it might make sense him paying to furnish her house, with an eye towards their future.
You know just putting all this down on paper made me think i may have misjudged this woman. she might just be a very honest but misunderstood woman. She might be the type of lady that a man can turn over all his assets to without a worry in the world, knowing they will be building a future together.
Then call it what it is. A dowry.
She is a gold digger, and he is a sucker. He should have bolted when she asked for the $1000. Or before.
Also note that a court cannot use common sense; it has to uphold the law. Though a poster made a good case for it being a verbal contract that entitles the man to get his money back.
I hope he learnt his lesson. I doubt it though. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 6:50:40 AM | I think the engagment ring should be given back if there is not going to be a wedding, why would you want to keep it anyways?
Unless it's given as a gift as well, ie for Christmas or Birthday.
I cannot imagen asking for money for my debt....I got myself in debt and I can work it off myself, without the help of a man. But that's just me.
I hope the guy runs far, far away. Mostly you hear of women running far away from a man, but it seems to be the opposite in this case.
Well, there's one born every minute. | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 8:44:08 AM | If someone had asked me for money on the 4th date.....there wouldn't have been a 5th one!!!
It's a shame he got taken for that much, but then again he should have been a little smarter about it! She sounds like a greedy b**ch. The fact that she can get herself into debt for that much should have been a red light!!!!! | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 8:58:58 AM | I didn't even have to read the whole thing to know this woman's a gold-digger. Miner's helmet for sure!
She asked for a restraining order because he wanted the ring back? Unless he was violent and she could prove it, she should not have been granted that. He should have known better as soon as she told him how much to spend on the ring and to give her what was left. If she loved him, the ring price wouldn't have mattered and neither would the rest of the money! Her debt is HER problem, not his.
That being said, the ring and the money may be considered gifts, and therefore her property. He may not be able to get them back. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 9:02:31 AM |
Golddigger, most definately. But, I bet he didn't get the money back, as it was a "gift".
Moon
P.S. It is "Engagement". Sorry, I moonlight with the spelling police.
P.S. It is "definitely." I am the chief of the spelling police and you are fired! 
OT, I'm not sure why this man would give $1,000 to someone he hardly knew, but $12,500 is a bargain compared to what she would have taken him for it they had gotten married. He should be thankful she broke off the engagement before she drove him into debt too. Sounds to me like she's just a con artist. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the ingagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 9:11:19 AM | | Okay, I'm obviously living on another planet. It would never have occurred to me to calculate what someone is "supposed" to spend on a ring - as long as it didn't come out of a Cracker-Jack box, I'd be flattered to receive it. Nor would it have occurred to me that anyone might give me a thousand dollars on a fourth date. I hope she earned it, is all I can say..... And yeah, I think she's very "practical." And calculating. And totally going to town with that gold-plated shovel. Makes ya hope there's such a thing as karma. | |
|
| |
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 9:17:30 AM | I know in a lot of states, legally, he gets the ring back if she breaks it off. Am pretty sure he gets the money back also. From a moral and ethical standpoint, without a doubt, he gets everything back. It was all given to her with the pretense that they were to get married and share it. If he broke it off, different story.
As for the lady, he must have been extremely desperate. I would avoid this woman like the plague! She sounds like a gold digger to me. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 9:25:18 AM | | I'd be curious to see how many other men she has done this to. Run up debt, find a guy, have him get you out of debt on the promise of a great future then, BAM, carpet gets pulled out from under him and he's too manly (pride) or too "nice" (gullible) to do anything about it. | |
|
| Should he be getting his money back, along with the engagement ring?
Posted: 8/2/2007 9:31:21 AM | "You know just putting all this down on paper made me think i may have misjudged this woman. she might just be a very honest but misunderstood woman. She might be the type of lady that a man can turn over all his assets to without a worry in the world, knowing they will be building a future together."
Good point OP, but it bothers me that she decided to break it off..........over funiture? Maybe he liked the funiture they had and felt it adaquate? Maybe there were other things that were more important at the time, and the funiture could wait? I can think of other things more important than a sofa and love seat to fight over. To me, it's more plasuable that she was a gold digger. A coniving *itch maybe???
IF she is the type that I could trust to turn over my finances to, screw Solomon Smith Barney, I marry her in a heartbeat! | |
|
Home
login 
