Return the ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?

I would hock it.

This is a rich family who cares. He probably had her sign a pre-nup and she will be pretty much destitute after the divorce. You can't get blood from a stone so sue away.

Crazy feminist here. So, are you saying that the only way for women to not be destitute is to be married? DW can work and support her kids. If not, then she shouldn't have had four of them. That's why there's birth control and abortion. Women get to be in the driver's seat on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?

I would hock it.

This is a rich family who cares. He probably had her sign a pre-nup and she will be pretty much destitute after the divorce. You can't get blood from a stone so sue away.

Crazy feminist here. So, are you saying that the only way for women to not be destitute is to be married? DW can work and support her kids. If not, then she shouldn't have had four of them. That's why there's birth control and abortion. Women get to be in the driver's seat on this.

Seriously, what a messed up assumption over a goddamned ring. Plus, prenups don't cover child support, so that doesn't matter, which leaves wifey taking care of herself. Like adults do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, return the ring. Why is this 7 pages?!

Because it's more complex than that. DW might need money for the kids and DH might not actually have anything in his own right that she can sue him for. I say trust be damned. Kids shouldn't go without just on a legal technicality.

Still don't get it. Return the ring. The end.

[Anonymous]

Give it back.

Even if he's a douche, be the bigger person. Good karma in the bank. Being vindictive accomplishes nothing other than making you an ugly person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, return the ring. Why is this 7 pages?!

Because it's more complex than that. DW might need money for the kids and DH might not actually have anything in his own right that she can sue him for. I say trust be damned. Kids shouldn't go without just on a legal technicality.

Still don't get it. Return the ring. The end.

+1. Just because the PP doesn't understand the very straightforward issues presented here does not make them complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?

I would hock it.

This is a rich family who cares. He probably had her sign a pre-nup and she will be pretty much destitute after the divorce. You can't get blood from a stone so sue away.

You can't negotiate child support in a prenup. And clearly very few people on this thread understand the child support enforcement process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?

Return the ring, OP. You have enough to be concerned about without adding a lawsuit to the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is the anti-Kate Middleton poster. She read gossip that Wills and Kate are divorcing and thinks that she will marry Prince Harry. And she wants that sapphire ring!

Good luck with that. I am going to marry Prince Harry, so there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A DH proposed to his wife with a ring that has been in his family for two generations. She knew at the time that it is a family heirloom. The ring actually belongs to a family trust and was passed to DH with the stipulation that it is his only for his lifetime and reverts to the family after that to be possessed by his sister's oldest living child. DH and wife are now divorcing after 11 years of marriage. Leaving aside the legal implications (that the family trust may sue DW to get the ring back), is DW morally obligated to give the ring back?

Does the answer change if DH is an abusive asshole who has yet to pay child support?

Does the answer change if DW is the abusive asshole who cheated on DH and left him and the kids for her lover?

The bolded doesn't matter. The ring goes back because that was the agreement, unless the agreement stipulated that all bets were off if asshole behavior surfaced on either side of the equation

[Anonymous]

what kind of effed up family puts a ring in a trust and expects it to bounce back and forth, from wearer to wearer?

oh, the kind of family where a couple has four kids, but cannot actually be responsible enough to care for their children and attend to their marriage, and instead commit adultery or refuse to fulfill parental obligations and waste their time fighting over a fucking ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP. Here's a twist: What if the trust won't sue DW because DH's family wants to avoid messiness and doesn't want to risk access to the kids. Should DW still return the ring?

Legally and morally the ring goes back. You keep hoping shades of gray will swing this your way, but no. *claps* The Ring. goes. back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, return the ring. Why is this 7 pages?!

Because it's more complex than that. DW might need money for the kids and DH might not actually have anything in his own right that she can sue him for. I say trust be damned. Kids shouldn't go without just on a legal technicality.

Still don't get it. Return the ring. The end.

+1. Just because the PP doesn't understand the very straightforward issues presented here does not make them complex.

Yup. I feel like Bill Engvall. I just want to say "Here's your sign" to some of the posters on this thread who think there is any gray area or complexity here.

[Anonymous]

Any lawyers who can answer? How is a stipulation like that even enforceable? Once he gives it to his wife how is she bound to it.

[Anonymous]

Let's say this was a $50M Angelina Jolie type ring. And the family wouldn't sue. They would have to pry that ring from my Kung Fu grip after 4 years abuse a special needs child. I might return it if DH paid the value. Morally I would find a way to justify it with all the wrong that had been done to me - and the future medical care needed for my child, not to mention the other three if I knew I would be going from $500M a year to $50K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's say this was a $50M Angelina Jolie type ring. And the family wouldn't sue. They would have to pry that ring from my Kung Fu grip after 4 years abuse a special needs child. I might return it if DH paid the value. Morally I would find a way to justify it with all the wrong that had been done to me - and the future medical care needed for my child, not to mention the other three if I knew I would be going from $500M a year to $50K.

Morally you would prefer to steal and/or sell something that is not yours, because it is valuable and you married a loser. Read that sentence a few times and tell me how that makes sense.

As someone posted upthread, does the woman have no agency? She somehow had four children (presumably sequentially, not quadruplets) with an abusive husband, and the only way she can imagine supporting herself is by keeping a ring that doesn't belong to her? She can't do what other women do and get a job?