If DW accepted the ring knowing the terms, the ethically correct thing is to give it back. It was never hers and not hers to keep or sell now.

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?!

You guys are assuming this guy has any money. I know cash poor trust fund babies. You can't sue them for shit because everything they have is the family's.

Why would someone so deaperately want to hold onto another family's ring that also represents their failed marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't have a problem with you wondering about this/posing the question. I'm posing a follow-up question: what is your involvement in this scenario?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

This.

I think the moral high road is to return the heirloom. But legally it is the wife's. So it can become a negotiable.

It's not legally the wife's. Absent any agreement to the contrary that would be true. There is an agreement to the contrary.

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?

He can only give away the rights that he had to the ring. So he could only give it to the wife for his lifetime. She's legally bound to give it back eventually.

She's also morally bound. It doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. If she agreed to give it back at some point and the marriage is over, she should give it back now. A moral person does the right thing, even when the people around her don't do the right thing. You do the right thing because it matters to you, not because you are trying to be nice to other people.

She should sue the crap out of him for child support, BTW. That is also the right thing to do. The children are entitled to financial support and if their father won't voluntarily provide it, their mother should force him to provide it.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sigh. NO. If your husband goes out and buys a ring with his own money, then it's his ring, yes. And if he gives it to you, it is then your ring.

But if the husband takes a family heirloom that he doesn't buy, that legally belongs to his family (he's essentially being loaned this ring during his lifetime), and gives it to his wife...she's just borrowing it from him, and he's borrowing it (for his lifetime) from the family trust.

Anonymous wrote: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?

This.

I think the moral high road is to return the heirloom. But legally it is the wife's. So it can become a negotiable.

What if the ring got lost or stolen?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh, you don't sound like a very pleasant person. - np

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Husband's family sounds like they are all just gems...

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, she can look out for the interests of her children by demanding that he pay what he owes her/them. But he can and should pay that in any number of ways besides selling/giving property *that isn't his to give, that doesn't belong to him.*

This is why my grandmother's ring was passed to a female relative. I get divorced, I still keep MY ring.

This situation is really stupid. He pays her the value of the ring, she returns it. Done.

OP. The posts about the ring being cursed are cracking me up, haha. Why is this the ring's fault? DH and DW are both problematic characters.