A man is not a plan.

A ring is not a plan.

Yes, he should pay his debts. With his own DAMB MONEY, not his family's property.

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.

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 ring should be returned. Family heirlooms should be returned. Even though wife and/or husband betrayed each other, it doesn't give the right to keep something that is legally not theirs. So yes, at the very least, on the man's death, the ring should be returned per the stipulations of the trust.

Stop playing games: If you are the wife, return the ring in honor of whom ever owned it first that made the request and file for child support. If you are the husband, ask for it back or demand it goes to your child. And, pay child support. (I'm assuming it was the wife).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. Then I must have read too quickly and missed something. Then WTH is the question? Jeez.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the wife should have realized something was up with this guy when they got engaged and he gave her a "borrowed for his lifetime" ring rather than a ring he bought for her himself with money he had earned.

That's really common in trust fund families. Just because your family is rich doesn't mean you've done anything for yourself.

I would rather be engaged to a man who has a job and buys a ring he can afford with his own earnings than one who gives me a more valuable borrowed ring. I share more values with a partner who works hard and lives within his own means than one who lives bigger only because of family money. It tells me a lot about character.

Another bullshitter. DCUMers would kill to marry into money. You're not choosing a working stiff over a Kennedy heir, for instance. No one believes you.

Seriously? You'd rather marry a guy whose job doesn't provide enough money to buy you a ring himself? I value hard work and can't imagine being married to someone who doesn't also appreciate his own hard work. People appreciate more things they have worked for over things they were given.

Long marriages are based on the characters of the two people involved. If my fiancé wanted to give me a borrowed ring that would have to be returned at his death, I'd say, you know what, I'd rather have something we can afford on our own.

The ring is a symbol of a promise: what kind of a promise is a borrowed ring a symbol of?

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?

I agree with this.

Etiquette states that an engagement ring should be returned if the engagement is broken, but once the marriage takes place, the wife has the right to keep the engagement ring. In this case, if she knew that the ring belonged to the trust and needed to be returned to the trust eventually at the time she accepted the ring, she should return it.

But the timing of its return can be negotiated. I would negotiate to return it after a nice sized child support payment is made, perhaps equivalent to the current value of the ring. Could DH borrow that from the family trust and repay the family trust if he doesn't have the money himself? It seems the only reason for DW to keep the ring would be to sell it. Otherwise, it's just a reminder of the pain of the bad marriage and divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys mean to tell me that if some guy ran out on you with no means to care for your four kids and you had something really valuable to sell, you'd choose to raise your kids in poverty?

This site is overrun with sanctimonious liars.

What I would do is LEGALLY PURSUE the payment of child support. I would inform my lawyer of the ring as a possible avenue of repayment, but I certainly would return the ring in the meantime. What with it not being my property and all; and what with me knowing that it was a family heirloom that would go back into a family trust the whole time, and all.

GTFOH. If you're this stupid, I feel bad for your kids.

Whatever. If the wife knew the status of the ring before she married, then she is an idiot for even remotely considering it to be owed to her.

And by the way? Scenarios like this are one of the many hundred reasons I have always made my own money, saved my own money and have secured my own future. I'm very happily married with two beautiful kids. But if the sky fell in tomorrow, I wouldn't worry about my financial future--or theirs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys mean to tell me that if some guy ran out on you with no means to care for your four kids and you had something really valuable to sell, you'd choose to raise your kids in poverty?

This site is overrun with sanctimonious liars.

What I would do is LEGALLY PURSUE the payment of child support. I would inform my lawyer of the ring as a possible avenue of repayment, but I certainly would return the ring in the meantime. What with it not being my property and all; and what with me knowing that it was a family heirloom that would go back into a family trust the whole time, and all.

GTFOH. If you're this stupid, I feel bad for your kids.

That's not stupid, that's reality. You think a child support agency is going to say "oh, wait, she got a ring, we're good here." Nooooooo. The husband still has to pay child support and of course you should legally pursue it. Separate and apart from a ring that has nothing to do with the damn children.

Hello niece or whatever other relative is next in line for the ring. Why not just sue already? Or at least tell us the full story..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the wife should have realized something was up with this guy when they got engaged and he gave her a "borrowed for his lifetime" ring rather than a ring he bought for her himself with money he had earned.

That's really common in trust fund families. Just because your family is rich doesn't mean you've done anything for yourself.

I would rather be engaged to a man who has a job and buys a ring he can afford with his own earnings than one who gives me a more valuable borrowed ring. I share more values with a partner who works hard and lives within his own means than one who lives bigger only because of family money. It tells me a lot about character.

Another bullshitter. DCUMers would kill to marry into money. You're not choosing a working stiff over a Kennedy heir, for instance. No one believes you.

What is the monetary worth of the ring?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys mean to tell me that if some guy ran out on you with no means to care for your four kids and you had something really valuable to sell, you'd choose to raise your kids in poverty?

This site is overrun with sanctimonious liars.

What I would do is LEGALLY PURSUE the payment of child support. I would inform my lawyer of the ring as a possible avenue of repayment, but I certainly would return the ring in the meantime. What with it not being my property and all; and what with me knowing that it was a family heirloom that would go back into a family trust the whole time, and all.

GTFOH. If you're this stupid, I feel bad for your kids.

Anonymous wrote:You guys mean to tell me that if some guy ran out on you with no means to care for your four kids and you had something really valuable to sell, you'd choose to raise your kids in poverty?

This site is overrun with sanctimonious liars.

What I would do is LEGALLY PURSUE the payment of child support. I would inform my lawyer of the ring as a possible avenue of repayment, but I certainly would return the ring in the meantime. What with it not being my property and all; and what with me knowing that it was a family heirloom that would go back into a family trust the whole time, and all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the wife should have realized something was up with this guy when they got engaged and he gave her a "borrowed for his lifetime" ring rather than a ring he bought for her himself with money he had earned.

That's really common in trust fund families. Just because your family is rich doesn't mean you've done anything for yourself.

I would rather be engaged to a man who has a job and buys a ring he can afford with his own earnings than one who gives me a more valuable borrowed ring. I share more values with a partner who works hard and lives within his own means than one who lives bigger only because of family money. It tells me a lot about character.