Return the ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the couple have children?

OP. Yes, four, of which one has mild cerebral palsy (what probably broke the already unstable marriage).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

Then it's non of your f'king business. Stay out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

It's a simple question. Did the wife in this scenario know what would happen to the ring in the case of a divorce, before she married the husband.

Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

I would include the return of the ring in the list of items to be negotiated. You are willing to return it. What is he willing to do to meet his obligations under the settlement of the divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the couple have children?

OP. Yes, four, of which one has mild cerebral palsy (what probably broke the already unstable marriage).

It does not matter at all whether they had children, or whether one of those children has cerebral palsy. What matters is that this ring is the legal property of the husband's family trust, not of the wife (and not even of the husband).

His trifling ass should pay child support, of course. But that has zero to do with HIS FAMILY'S ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

OP. Since the ring is a tangible item, only one person can have it per generation. To make things a bit more fair, the trust provides that the person in the next generation to have it won't also be the kid of the person from the last generation who last had it. That reduces the sting for any siblings who don't get the ring. There are other heirlooms that are similarly passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

Then it's non of your f'king business. Stay out of it.

OP. But I haven't told you who I am, have I? Very stupid of you to assume disposition of a family heirloom is only two people's business. You sound mental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

OP. Since the ring is a tangible item, only one person can have it per generation. To make things a bit more fair, the trust provides that the person in the next generation to have it won't also be the kid of the person from the last generation who last had it. That reduces the sting for any siblings who don't get the ring. There are other heirlooms that are similarly passed.

All the more reason the ring gets returned, without question. Why should the niece get screwed over because her uncle was an a$$hole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

OP. Since the ring is a tangible item, only one person can have it per generation. To make things a bit more fair, the trust provides that the person in the next generation to have it won't also be the kid of the person from the last generation who last had it. That reduces the sting for any siblings who don't get the ring. There are other heirlooms that are similarly passed.

All the more reason the ring gets returned, without question. Why should the niece get screwed over because her uncle was an a$$hole?

OP. Very good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

Then it's non of your f'king business. Stay out of it.

OP. But I haven't told you who I am, have I? Very stupid of you to assume disposition of a family heirloom is only two people's business. You sound mental.

NP. I'm not the one who said the "f'king" business comment. I am the one who posed the initial point you were responding to.

But this all brings up a good point: if you are not the wife, and this is not your business, why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

OP. Since the ring is a tangible item, only one person can have it per generation. To make things a bit more fair, the trust provides that the person in the next generation to have it won't also be the kid of the person from the last generation who last had it. That reduces the sting for any siblings who don't get the ring. There are other heirlooms that are similarly passed.

Sounds like quite the ring. Some JRR Tolkien stuff happening up in that family.

[Anonymous]

OP. But isn't the care of DW's children her first priority over the interests of any of DH's relatives? This ring is worth enough to make a real difference in those kids' lives. They stand to get nothing from their worthless father.

[Anonymous]

I dont understand this (and am not a lawyer.) But if he possessed the ring and it was legally his during his lifetime, and he chose to give it away to his wife, it is hers now isn't it? My husband (bought &) gave me my ring, I consider it mine not his.

That said, I agree with PP, it is voodoo cursed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you knew about what would happen to the ring in case of divorce, yes? This is not new news, right? Return the ring.

OP. Sigh. There's always a Miss Cleo in each thread. I'm neither the DH nor the DW and you're not psychic.

Then it's non of your f'king business. Stay out of it.

OP. But I haven't told you who I am, have I? Very stupid of you to assume disposition of a family heirloom is only two people's business. You sound mental.

NP. I'm not the one who said the "f'king" business comment. I am the one who posed the initial point you were responding to.

But this all brings up a good point: if you are not the wife, and this is not your business, why do you care?

OP. You can spend the rest of your afternoon wondering about that. Who else apart from the couple in question would care about and have rights to a valuable heirloom that belongs to the family? Hm. Fortunately, the thread can continue whether or not you have a problem with me starting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, hit submit too soon.


Did the couple have children?... and if so, why is it going to his sister's kids and not his?

OP. Since the ring is a tangible item, only one person can have it per generation. To make things a bit more fair, the trust provides that the person in the next generation to have it won't also be the kid of the person from the last generation who last had it. That reduces the sting for any siblings who don't get the ring. There are other heirlooms that are similarly passed.

All the more reason the ring gets returned, without question. Why should the niece get screwed over because her uncle was an a$$hole?

+1. This is neither morally nor legally a difficult question. The ring and child support have nothing to do with another. What I find morally reprehensible is the wife seemingly using access to kids as a bargaining chip around the ring, or the ring as a bargaining chip for access to the kids, whichever way you look at it. I get he's not paying child support, but child support and visitation/access to kids are also separate. Trying to connect the two is disgusting.