New York Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Clement Law Firm : Family Law Serving Manhattan, Westchester County, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, New York City

This is primarily a blog about New York divorce. In it, I have repeatedly written about people fighting over engagement rings or engaged in their epic divorce struggles.  

For a change, on a hot summer day, I though I would acknowledge a touching and romantic piece from  The New York Times  on the loss of a wedding ring. 

I have worn my wedding ring every single day since my wedding more than seven years ago. I had never misplaced it before. But there I was staring at my bare finger. I noticed the indentation left by the ring, like a phantom band, and the skin tone of this narrow groove, a shade paler than the rest. I felt guilty, as though I had committed an act of infidelity. I imagined my wife’s quiet disappointment; there is nothing in the world quite like it. My hand grew heavy.

I offer this  op-ed piece as momentary diversion from the divorce battles and to re-affirm why it is we marry.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The engagement ring cases keep coming.

In the latest reported engagement ring case, Dreznick v Lenchner, the loving couple resided together in New York when they became engaged to be wed. A year and a half later, the woman ended the engagement and moved from the man’s residence with an engagement ring, a dog, and other items of personal property allegedly belonging to the man.  The jilted man demanded the return of the ring and other property and the woman, who had moved to California, refused. The man commenced suit and the woman sought to have the action dismissed, claiming a New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.

In a rather curious ruling, the Appellate Division found that personal jurisdiction was obtained on the cause of action for the return of the engagement ring under CPLR 302(b). That section grants a New York court  personal jurisdiction over non-residents and non-domiciliaries in "matrimonial actions."

  As Thomas Swartz questions, since the parties were never married, how could CPLR 302(b) apply?
The Court  did not elaborate.  Perhaps, deliberately so, hoping that the "just" result would not be questioned. After all, this woman just did not want to return the ring.   She lost at the trial court level and appealed.  (It must have been some ring for them to spend that much money fighting about it.)

It is interesting that the appellate court took such an expansive view of the term matrimonial action. 
I wonder if the court will take such an expansive view when it is confronted with a break up of a same sex relationship.

• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

If parties do not wed, the engagement ring must be returned.   A engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. The engagement ring is a conditional gift and if the marriage does not take place, the condition has not been satisfied and the ring must be returned. 

Despite this “golden rule,” it is sometimes necessary to litigate to compel the return of the ring. Indeed, I had to file one such action this week.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks