[CLBS] Engagement Ring
William J. O'Connor
will at williamthelawyer.com
Wed Mar 12 11:06:55 MDT 2014
Yugo? How does something of no value to begin with depreciate?
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 11:04 AM, D. Blair Clark <dbc at dbclarklaw.com> wrote:
> 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