Vancouver Separation Diamond Engagement Rings lawyers deal with the emotions over a breakup before things even get started and even when a relationship ends. In today’s blog we explain the emotional issue over diamond rings when relationships go sideways.
IS IT TRUE THAT DIAMONDS ARE A GIRL’S BEST FRIEND?
CARTIER, TIFFANYS, BLACKSTAR, FROST, AND GHORHAM! TALK TO ME, HARRY WINSTON!
“There may come a time when a lass needs a lawyer
But diamonds are a girl’s best friend!”
The subject of diamonds comes up when couples get engaged to marry and when the engagement is broken or later on when they get divorced.
The engagement ring is a symbolic token of love and good faith. It is unique in the realm of property law principals that manifest in idioms such as “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” and “Possession is 9/10ths of the law” and “A bird in the hand is worth 10 in the bush.”
Vancouver Separation Diamond Engagement Rings lawyers – Call 1 877 602 9900
The engagement ring is a conditional gift because it has strings attached. More like chains than strings because it must be returned to the giver (the giftor) if the engagement is broken off. The gift is made on the condition that the engagement subsists through to the end of the wedding ceremony. It does not “vest” as the property of the receiver (the give) until he or she speaks the magic words “I do” in the wedding ceremony.
Thomas á Kempis: “A wise lover values not so much the gift of the lover as the love of the giver.”
Property law principals favour the giftee at the point in time that the gifted jewellery vests in the recipient. From that moment, it is true that possession is 9/10ths of the law. The key point of this analogy is the word “possession.” In the case, S.L.C. v. C.J.R.C., 2014 BCSC 1814, in a Trial decision, the trial judge issued her version of justice in the fight over valuable jewellery gifted to the Wife.
Vancouver Separation Diamond Engagement Rings lawyers – Call 1 877 602 9900
The husband kept possession of an anniversary ring valued at $50,000. The wife had kept and sold her $10,000 wedding ring for $2,275 cash. She claimed $50,000 compensation from the husband. The Court acknowledged that gifts of jewellery from one spouse to the other during marriage are not a family asset so not subject to being valued and divided with the value of other property when the marriage dissolves. The Court accepted the wife’s evidence on the sale of her wedding ring that the market for used rings is such that $2,275 was a fair price for her $10,000 wedding ring. The anniversary ring was not appraised; there was no evidence of its’ present value or what it would fetch on resale. Vancouver Separation Diamond Engagement Rings lawyers note The Court awarded the wife $15,000 on the claimed $50,000 value of her beloved anniversary ring.
But wait! The husband never paid her the money for the ring so in 2016 the court ordered him to give the ring to her!
Our Vancouver Separation Diamond Engagement Rings lawyers know Possession is 9/10ths of the law. In this case, 15,000/50,000. The wife recovered $15,000 and the husband kept the $50,000 ring in his possession. Rough justice, indeed. The wife ought to have claimed that the gifted ring be restored to her “in specie” so she could continue to flash the diamonds in perpetuity. Oh my dear.
Note this case was decided under the old Family Relations Act the new Family Law Act says gifts between spouses are not excluded property of the recipient so the value of the engagement ring and the end of a committed relationship may be shared equally moving forward! Yet see Collins v Lindhal where the court in 2018 stated:
[71] Mr. Lindahl gave a $7,000 ring as a gift to Ms. Collins at Christmas 2009, nearly seven years prior to their separation. In his testimony, Mr. Lindahl agreed that it was not an engagement ring and he and Ms. Collins had no plans to marry. Mr. Lindahl described it as a symbol of “our love and committed relationship.” Mr. Lindahl kept the ring after they separated and retains it to this day. Ms. Collins says it was an absolute gift and there is no reason why it should not be returned to her. I agree with Ms. Collins on this point. Indeed, Mr. Lindahl has resiled from his initial suggestion that he should be entitled to $3,500 as his one-half share of this item. Mr. Lindahl has no claim to the ring and is not entitled to any monetary contribution.
As you can see the law is not perfectly clear on this emotional issue.Contact our experienced and highly rated family lawyers across BC and in Calgary Alberta at Call 1 877 602 9900.
