Return the ring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. I would either want to return the ring or include in the divorce agreement that it would go to one of the children from that marriage.
2. If she is that hard up for money/the husband owes a lot, I could see her holding the ring (or any other valuable asset) as hostage until he pays/agrees to reasonable payment.
3. If the ring is the only valuable asset and the woman has primary custody and does not receive child support AND cannot support her children, I could see her selling it.

Do people not understand what a trust is? It's not his to negotiate in a divorce agreement. It's not hers to negotiate in a divorce agreement. The ring legally belongs to his family trust. The husband's family absolutely should sue if the wife sells it. Her selling the ring has nothing to do with any subsequent custody arrangement.

[Anonymous]

"the ring legally belongs to the trust". OK you bunch of brainiac lawyers.

Did the wife sign anything acknowledging that her engagement ring was in essence a loan? Or.... could the DW be held responsible for receiving stolen property? Property which would have been stolen by... the DH???

Yes it's an item to be negotiated. Perhaps legally they could enforce that it's a loaned item and she has to return it. That's on them to prove. She can make it easy for them or she can make it hard. That's why it's one more item on the list of things they need to settle.... in their settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the ring legally belongs to the trust". OK you bunch of brainiac lawyers.

Did the wife sign anything acknowledging that her engagement ring was in essence a loan? Or.... could the DW be held responsible for receiving stolen property? Property which would have been stolen by... the DH???

Yes it's an item to be negotiated. Perhaps legally they could enforce that it's a loaned item and she has to return it. That's on them to prove. She can make it easy for them or she can make it hard. That's why it's one more item on the list of things they need to settle.... in their settlement.

OK, cool. If she wants to end up paying a crapton of legal fees on super-fun billable hours as the lawyers prove/argue over this, cool. At the end of the day, that ring is going to go back to its rightful owner: the family trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the ring legally belongs to the trust". OK you bunch of brainiac lawyers.

Did the wife sign anything acknowledging that her engagement ring was in essence a loan? Or.... could the DW be held responsible for receiving stolen property? Property which would have been stolen by... the DH???

Yes it's an item to be negotiated. Perhaps legally they could enforce that it's a loaned item and she has to return it. That's on them to prove. She can make it easy for them or she can make it hard. That's why it's one more item on the list of things they need to settle.... in their settlement.

She doesn't have to sign anything acknowledging that. Her signature means nothing. Nobody's saying the DH stole the damn ring. He did exactly what it seems like the trust was designed for. But if she sells it, she's on the hook for stealing it, yes. Because it wasn't his to fully give outright. This is such an easy concept, why are people acting like it's so novel?

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the ring legally belongs to the trust". OK you bunch of brainiac lawyers.

Did the wife sign anything acknowledging that her engagement ring was in essence a loan? Or.... could the DW be held responsible for receiving stolen property? Property which would have been stolen by... the DH???

Yes it's an item to be negotiated. Perhaps legally they could enforce that it's a loaned item and she has to return it. That's on them to prove. She can make it easy for them or she can make it hard. That's why it's one more item on the list of things they need to settle.... in their settlement.

Clearly you aren't a lawyer, so you really should shut up. Yes, a bunch of "brainiac lawyers" set up the trust to begin with. It's done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH is *temporarily loaned* a ring that is owned in perpetuity *by his family trust.* He may possess the ring for the duration of his life. When he dies, the ring goes back to his family.

Whether DH puts that ring in a safe deposit box, or on the finger of a woman he marries for a few years (or a lifetime), that ring still legally, ethically and morally is promptly returned to his family upon his death.

If DH wants that ring back from the woman at any time to put into a safe deposit box, or even up his a$$, during his lifetime, he may do so. Because he owns that ring during his lifetime.

Basically, yeah. He can put it wherever he wants during his lifetime. And when he dies, it goes back to his family.

[Anonymous]

The wife does not own the ring. The husband does not own the ring. The ring belongs to his family trust.

The husband "gave" his wife a ring he did not own and would never own. People are confused here because an engagement ring is usually a gift as a sign of an engagement. It usually belongs to the person it is given to after the wedding has taken place.

In this case, the husband used a borrowed ring to symbolize his intent to marry for life. The ring loses a lot of its meaning when it is not the property of the couple involved.

[Anonymous]

OP is so the ex-wife/soon-to-be-ex-wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"the ring legally belongs to the trust". OK you bunch of brainiac lawyers.

Did the wife sign anything acknowledging that her engagement ring was in essence a loan? Or.... could the DW be held responsible for receiving stolen property? Property which would have been stolen by... the DH???

Yes it's an item to be negotiated. Perhaps legally they could enforce that it's a loaned item and she has to return it. That's on them to prove. She can make it easy for them or she can make it hard. That's why it's one more item on the list of things they need to settle.... in their settlement.

She doesn't need to. He can only give away the rights that he has.

Example: If I have a lease on a house, I can sublease it to another person, but I can't sell it. Her DH could give her the ring to use, but he didn't own, so he couldn't giver her ownership of it.

[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?

I would hock it.

[Anonymous]

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.

And then you would be sued. And you would lose.

[Anonymous]

The real question is how much is the ring worth and do you have it in writing that she should give it back. Did she sign a pre-nup?

[Anonymous]

This type of thing is what's wrong with America. People are so spun up over a material possession; something that could get lost or stolen. Don't put so much energy into something that isn't going with you when you die. If I were the DW I would never ever have accepted a ring that came with strings attached.

All that said, yes the woman is morally obligated to return the ring. It never ever belonged to her and she was merely borrowing it. She knew that at the get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is the niece who is supposed to get the ring but her jerk aunt and uncle are messing it up.

Am I right?!

OP is probably DH's sister who can't believe her brother is such a d*ck.

I think she is DW (or DH) even though she's saying she is not

I think the OP is either:

1) A sister of DH whose daughter is not this niece that will get the ring. Therefore, vengefully doesn't want her sister's child to get it.

or

2) Sister of DW. Or a Sister-In-Law of DW.