[CLBS] [MT-C.FID650559]

Wed Mar 12 10:27:32 MDT 2014

This is Stephen R. Thomas.  Please remove me from this routing list ASAP!

Stephen R. Thomas
MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS, CHTD.
Post Office Box 829      83701
101 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1000
Boise, ID  83702
www.moffatt.com
800 422 2889
208 385 5468 (direct dial, fax, voicemail)
208 867 5489 (cell)

-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Randal French
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:17 AM
To: clbs at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: Re: [CLBS] Engagement Ring

I would be concerned about this.  But my first thought is that an engagement ring worth $6,000 at retail might well be worth $600 to $1200 in the real world, so you may not be exempting $6,000.  You might have your client investigate what a ring like hers would sell for at a used jewelry store or a pawn shop, or talk to your local trustee and see what their experience is in selling jewelry.  My view is that jewelry has a value to the estate of about 10 to 20% of retail value.

Do not forget your wildcard exemption of $800 that you can apply to any tangible personal property.  You can exempt up to $1,800 of value using both.

I think that the analysis Will provided is accurate and would apply in any non-bankruptcy court one litigates in.  That would be because there it is a 2 party dispute between giver and receiver.  Bk is a dispute between a debtor and all of the assets of the estate, on one side, and the trustee representing all of the creditors of the estate, on the other side.  My concern is that this is bk court, and the fight is always whether one party, the fiancé, gets all of the value of any asset or whether all creditors share in the asset.  If you have to go to court to litigate the issue, then the client is already paying for the asset in additional litigation fees and running the risk of loss.  I would be concerned that a trustee might argue and a judge might conclude that the fiancé may have a claim against the client for the value of the ruling if they do not marry, but not the ownership of the ring.  A trustee might argue that this fits in the secret lien or interest category.

Good luck.

Randy French
www.bauerandfrench.com

Bauer & French
Attorneys at Law
1501 Tyrell Lane 1P.O. Box 2730 PBoise, ID 83701-2730
(208) 383-0090 ( Fax: (208) 383-0412
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, may contain information that may be confidential or privileged and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, you must delete this message and attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is to be a legally binding signature.

-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Sarah Bratton
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:02 AM
To: clbs at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: Re: [CLBS] Engagement Ring

I do not believe Idaho has any case law on point but I agree with William. The general "modern" rule is that an engagement ring is a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage. So it's not hers until the marriage  occurs. I vaguely remember this coming up in a bankruptcy case once and it wasn't a problem. Though in my case it was less expensive so probably not worth the litigation to the Trustee, the outcome might be different if the value was higher but I don't believe so.  I would list it on the SOFA as property held for another.

Good Luck.

Sarah B. Bratton, Attorney
Martelle, Bratton and Associates
sarah at martellelaw.com
Eagle, ID 83616

-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of William J. O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:42 AM
To: Megan Johnson
Cc: clbs at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: Re: [CLBS] Engagement Ring

I do not have case law that I can cite, but I recall that the general rule, at least from common law, is that an engagement ring is a gift that is contingent upon the marriage occurring.  If the engagement is ended other than by marriage,  then the engagement ring would go back to the fiancé (former almost groom).  That is why some wedding rings (like my wife's), is a combination of her engagement ring and an added marriage band received at the time of the wedding.  Traditionally, if the would-be bride said "no, I'm calling off the wedding," she would then give her former would-be groom the engagement ring back.

It seems to me that she is holding property for somebody else currently, but you may have a problem, especially depending upon when the marriage date is set for, because she has a contingent interest in the engagement ring.

Good luck!

William J. O'Connor
O'Connor Law, PLLC
355 West Myrtle Street
Suite 100
Boise, ID 83702

Office:  208-344-5095
Fax: 208-424-3100

On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Megan Johnson <megan at sandpointlaw.com> wrote:

> Good morning all:
>
> I have a client whose fiancé just proposed, and now she has a
> beautiful $6k engagement ring. I can only exempt a little over $1,000
> - which would mean she would have to buy back the ring from the bankruptcy estate, after just
> receiving it!   What do you think of the idea that the ring isn't really
> hers until they get married, which won't be before we file?
>
> I would appreciate any insight you might have on this!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Megan
>
>
>
>
>
> Megan L. Johnson
>
> *Berg & McLaughlin, Chtd.*
>
> 414 Church Street, Suite 203
>
> Sandpoint, ID 83864
>
> Phone 208-263-4748
>
> Fax 208-263-7557
>
> The information contained in this email is confidential and may also
> contain privileged attorney-client information or work product.  The
> information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
> listed in the subject line.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this email in error, please immediately notify us by reply
> email or telephone at (208) 263-4748, and delete/destroy the original message.  Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> CLBS mailing list
> CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
> http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs

_______________________________________________
CLBS mailing list
CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs
_______________________________________________
CLBS mailing list
CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs

!SIG:532084f0128043468144930!

_______________________________________________
CLBS mailing list
CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs

NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes a confidential attorney-client or other confidential communication. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (208) 345-2000, so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you.

NOTICE: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.