[CLBS] Engagement Ring
D. Blair Clark
dbc at dbclarklaw.com
Wed Mar 12 11:04:18 MDT 2014
Agreed! Jewelry depreciates faster than a Yugo.
D. Blair Clark
LAW OFFICES OF D. BLAIR CLARK PLLC
1513 Tyrell Lane, Suite 130
Boise, ID 83706
Telephone: (208) 475-2050
Fax: (208) 475-2055
-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Jeff Heineman
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:55 AM
To: 'William J. O'Connor'; 'Randal French'
Cc: clbs at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: Re: [CLBS] Engagement Ring
You can include Nebraska on that list of states the calls the ring a
conditional gift. I am more inclined to agree with Randy that the actual
value of the ring must be determined to see if you have a problem.
Jeffrey P. Heineman
Heineman Law Office
1501 Tyrell Lane
Boise, Idaho 83706
Ph: (208) 343-5687
Fax: (208) 947-9009
jeff at Heinemanlaw.com
www.Heinemanlaw.com
-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of William J.
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Randal French
Cc: clbs at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: Re: [CLBS] Engagement Ring
Here is some case law from other states, the majority of which agree that
the ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault. Just a few
years ago, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stuck steadfastly to the
no-fault reasoning and decreed that the donor should always get the ring
back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why.
Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1999). Over 20 other states have the same
rule.
Justices on the Supreme Court of Kansas, which also adopted the no-fault
rule in 1997, detailed the difficulties that they imagined would be theirs
with a fault-based approach:
[S]hould courts be asked to determine which of the following grounds for
breaking an engagement is fault or justified? (1) The parties have nothing
in common; (2) one party cannot stand prospective in-laws; (3) a minor child
of one of the parties is hostile to and will not accept the other party; (4)
an adult child of one of the parties will not accept the other party; (5)
the parties' pets do not get along; (6) a party was too hasty in proposing
or accepting the proposal; (7) the engagement was a rebound situation which
is now regretted; (8) one party has untidy habits that irritate the other;
or (9) the parties have religious differences.
Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 637 (Kan. 1997).
Here is some from a Pennsylvania case that considers fault of the break up
to determine which party gets the ring: Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 136 A.2d
127, 130 (Penn. 1957).
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 10:17 AM, Randal French <RFrench at bauerandfrench.com>
wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the CLBS
mailing list