[CLBS] Engagement Ring

Wed Mar 12 11:15:27 MDT 2014

It's also possible that the debtor doesn't know about a loan against the
ring.  Find out,  and there is,  it doesn't matter if it's hers.

Ryan Farnsworth
On Mar 12, 2014 11:07 AM, "William J. O'Connor" <will at williamthelawyer.com>
wrote:

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