|
Despite our occasional slip-up, I tend to think of we Americans as forward-thinking people. We’re America, the land of the immigrant! The land of the downtrodden being given a second chance, the melting pot, the mixing bowl! Equal rights for all!
Ha ha! Just kidding. We Americans are about as tolerant as everyone else in the world, which is to say: Not much at all. And speaking of equality, here’s a law you might not have known: In Pennsylvania, an engagement ring is the husband’s property until the marriage.
Sounds good, huh? The Inky reports that in a 4-3 ruling in 1999, the state supreme court set precedent while settling the dispute of a Western Pennsylvania couple. The decision said that the ring remains the possession of the person who gave it “even if the donor broke the engagement.”
And now a Philadelphia construction manager is being sued by her former fiance over a $35,000 ring he gave her — which she sold when he broke off the engagement.
Weird as to how to approach this one, since, well, it’s kind of unfair to the guy, since it is his ring, and it’s unfair that this woman is in hot water after a guy broke it off. (There’s more to the story, as well; the woman alleges her ex forced her to sell her other rings when he gave her the engagement rock. We’re going to need Solomon to figure this one out.)
I suppose this rule was made to stop women from taking rings and running off legally, but what’s to stop a man from holding threat of a breakup over his fiancee’s head? I tend to have a pretty low opinion of people, but is either scenario really all that typical?
Either way, this is true: Everyone takes engagement rings way too seriously. And, uhm, in Pennsylvania, whoever gives the engagement ring (i.e. the guy) has a serious advantage.
Jilted, then sued over ring [Inky]
Jan. 30: But what about dog on dog marriage?
|