Author Topic: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring  (Read 15566 times)

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #50 on: October 02, 2018, 12:24:17 PM »
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )


I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying  him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.

Slee_stack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2018, 01:46:53 PM »
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )


I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying  him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world.  Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?

Seems an odd start to forming a team.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2018, 02:55:53 PM »
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )


I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying  him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world.  Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?

Seems an odd start to forming a team.

Yes some have said it's outmoded. I have heard of a number of couples now getting matching engagement bands.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2018, 12:13:06 AM »
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )


I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying  him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.

The way it worked was like this. Two families were mingling their assets and investing them in the next generation-- that is to say, in the new couple. One of the first public expressions of the investment was to allow one half of the new couple to publicly put a token (but easily recognizable) portion of the family's wealth on the other. Before this happened, *lots* of conversations had to happen between the happy couple, their parents, and generally some lawyers and accountants.

I suppose it's outmoded, but old families that take old-familyness seriously are always at least 100 years behind the times.

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3695
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2018, 12:52:49 AM »
I wouldn't care if DH had proposed with a "recycled" stone.  I think it's a bit ridiculous to equate not wanting a ring that was the symbol of love and commitment between your partner and someone else is the same as claiming diamonds are "one use".

I have a vintage ring, purchased from an estate store, so clearly it is "used", but it was purchased for me, with me in mind, and to symbolize the relationship DH and I have.  That's a world away from "the last chick said no, so hopefully you'll accept it". 

If DH would have sold an old ring and used the money to buy a new one, fine.  If he'd used the same diamond, fine.  heck, if the gold had been melted and formed into a new ring, also fine.  But one hopes that a person picking out an item that most likely will be worn nearly every day for the rest of someone's life actually does it with her in mind, especially when that item is also a symbol of their relationship. I wanted a ring that DH picked out with me and our relationship in mind.  It's not some materialistic need for new or better or more expensive.    In general, regifts of emotional items are not a good idea, unless it is very intentional and the previous owner or life of the item is important.  (Using grandma's ring because Grandma was very special to the person and her marriage highly successful, for example.) 

YYK

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Location: Scattered disc
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM »
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world.  Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?

Seems an odd start to forming a team.

I am unaware of when the practice of engagement rings, or engagement gifts in general, started. However, the idea of a *diamond* engagement ring was largely conjured from pure air by De Beers in the 1930s as a way of propping up the price of otherwise not very valuable, common gems:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

Interesting that this article describes impending threats to the diamond cartel nearly 40 years ago. Apparently none of them bore fruit as clearly the diamond invention is going strong today.

Maenad

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2018, 08:17:38 AM »
Yes some have said it's outmoded. I have heard of a number of couples now getting matching engagement bands.

DH and I exchanged inexpensive rings almost 25 years ago when we got engaged. I wasn't going to be "marked off-limits" unless he was too. :-) 

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4214
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2018, 12:16:41 PM »
DW and I don't even wear our wedding rings. I recycled a family stone and bought a ring for it. Its beautiful. Neither of us are much into jewelry and DW worries about losing the stone somehow. I wouldn't want to lose it either but neither of us would lose any sleep over it.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2018, 12:32:43 PM »
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world.  Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?

Seems an odd start to forming a team.

I am unaware of when the practice of engagement rings, or engagement gifts in general, started. However, the idea of a *diamond* engagement ring was largely conjured from pure air by De Beers in the 1930s as a way of propping up the price of otherwise not very valuable, common gems:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

Interesting that this article describes impending threats to the diamond cartel nearly 40 years ago. Apparently none of them bore fruit as clearly the diamond invention is going strong today.

People keep repeating the claim that Debeers "invented" the idea of a diamond engagement ring. That is not true. Debeers invested a lot in promoting that the only good or "real" engagement ring was a diamond ring, and more specifically how much money the man should spend on that ring (2 months salary) to increase revenues. They also promoted the idea that a "diamond is forever" to discourage resale of diamonds. However the idea of engagement rings with gemstones goes back for centuries, and wedding rings to antiquity. My grandmother and great grandmother both received diamond engagement rings and that was in the 30's, and late 1800s. The first and probably most famous diamond engagement ring was given in 1477  (Arch Duke Maximillian of Austria). Very few people had diamond rings, but that was because the only deposits were rather small and mined out (India, Brazil). Diamonds became more abundant and affordable after the Kimberly and other deposits were discovered (along with new mining techniques).

You may not approve of the practice of engagement rings, and no one HAS to follow that particular tradition, but Debeers did not invent the idea of the diamond engagement ring.   
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 12:40:19 PM by partgypsy »

Spiffsome

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #59 on: October 12, 2018, 09:35:30 PM »
When my husband proposed, we picked out a ring together that he paid for, then he asked the saleslady if they did a discount for cash. (He'd checked with me beforehand.) Her horrified facial expression was a thing to behold.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2018, 09:40:38 PM »
When my husband proposed, we picked out a ring together that he paid for, then he asked the saleslady if they did a discount for cash. (He'd checked with me beforehand.) Her horrified facial expression was a thing to behold.

I'd have paid to have seen that. It would be a good prank.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5155
  • Age: 12
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2018, 12:13:05 AM »
That woman must be getting a shit ton of hate mail. I wonder if they left her email address on the exhibits on purpose.

Rosy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Location: Florida
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #62 on: October 16, 2018, 01:24:50 PM »
Ethically, why should a woman ever WANT to keep the engagement ring?

Ethically, it was a gift given to her?
Rationally, it is of value and to sell it?
Irrationally, because eff him.

Exactly, all of that!:) ... and ... to remind her to be more cautious - picky - smarter, in the future?

On re-cycling:)
Personally, I wouldn't want someone else's ring, unless it was a family heirloom, that I either loved as is or would have permission to have re-worked into a design I loved.

Call me greedy and non-mustachian if you like, but I don't get $25 rings unless you're in debt city or every penny counts, because you're working toward a specific goal. Even then, I would expect a really nice ring as soon as that situation is resolved.
In my opinion, the ring should be as nice as you can afford, without breaking the bank and without deliberately pushing for the cheapest option.

Seems the diamond stores push for three months of income as the price for the ring, I say one-month income is just fine. I think my only limitation would be - no payments, if you can't afford it outright - maybe you should wait until you can.

Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.

That woman must be getting a shit ton of hate mail. I wonder if they left her email address on the exhibits on purpose.

I was wondering how much of a spin this story had - there are always two sides to a story. He made sure she was publicly shamed and drug through the mud.

Tass

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #63 on: October 16, 2018, 02:10:50 PM »
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.

This just makes me want an engagement ring even less. If "my man" wants to brag about his financial standing he can do it with his own jewelry.

I'm not engaged and not soon to become so, but whenever I get there I want an equal exchange of tokens, whatever the tokens may be. I'll wear a ring when I'm married. I don't need two. And I don't need an insurance policy on my marital prospects, which (as discussed above) was the original point of an engagement ring.

Not trying to criticize you, @Rosy, just sharing another opinion.

Rosy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Location: Florida
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #64 on: October 16, 2018, 05:02:34 PM »
Naw, don't worry @Tass - I said that from the stance of a few decades of observation. It has been my observation that this is simply the case in certain circles.

The last really cool, impressive rock I saw was about fifteen years ago, $30K+. The young lady became engaged to a basketball player. It was really too big and pretentious to wear daily, but she was so excited she did for the rest of the semester at design school.
He could well afford it.
She was as hardworking as he was. AFAIK they build a great life and business together - a glam life on the outside, but where it counted very down to earth people.

In the end, it isn't about the ring, but it says a lot about a man how he approaches giving his chosen lady her first ring. Some men do not consult, they simply surprise and present. Others want to give their fiance the moon even if they cannot afford it and there are plenty of men and women who have their own widely varied concepts of what they want and expect.

We just did white gold wedding bands and a few years later I got a beautiful Art Deco diamond ring when his mom passed away. I'm not a diamond girl, but that one was special. It was lost in a fire. Sniff. 

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #65 on: October 16, 2018, 09:58:54 PM »
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
 

So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.

It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.

So reusing a ring once is too far??? Should your sister's boyfriend have tossed the ring in the ocean instead of re-using it? Should your sister's boyfriend's ex-fiance kept the ring after the failed engagement?

None of this sounds very Mustachian.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5155
  • Age: 12
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #66 on: October 16, 2018, 10:38:19 PM »
Yeah people are weird about rings. When you move in with your beau there's a good chance the bedroom has had other women sweating and moaning in it before you came into the picture, yet nobody asks for the bed and sheets to be thrown away. But for some reason a ring is single use?

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4995
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2018, 06:20:57 AM »
Yeah people are weird about rings. When you move in with your beau there's a good chance the bedroom has had other women sweating and moaning in it before you came into the picture, yet nobody asks for the bed and sheets to be thrown away. But for some reason a ring is single use?

Do be fair, I'm pretty sure if you mentioned this, it would probably result in the sheets and mattress having to go. So maybe the problem is a question of semi-plausible deniability when it comes to engagement rings? They're relatively single purpose.

Maenad

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2018, 08:36:46 AM »
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.

Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.

And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2018, 08:43:14 AM »
I hate the concept of "upgrading" an engagement ring. That seems to take the whole meaning out of it. To me, it's not a status symbol, but a symbol of commitment. The size or cost of it is irrelevant to me (as long as it's not too expensive), but I'd want it to represent my style and be something I can wear every day. Anyone who says they would say no to a proposal if the ring wasn't big enough probably shouldn't be getting married to that person.

saguaro

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2018, 09:25:17 AM »
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.

I got a smallish split shank solitaire ring when I got engaged and many years later, I still love it.  I didn't care about the size, in fact I got many compliments on it, but I gave no s**ts about people who thought it was too small and therefore some reflection on my husband that he didn't give me something bigger.   I didn't want my husband to spend beyond his means, in fact, I told him I was OK without one or even just a gemstone ring but he really wanted to get me a diamond. 

My so-called "upgrade" was ten years later when I got an anniversary ring that was still small and cost less than the engagement ring.  I got it after I temporarily lost the diamond at work and found it....in my wastebasket.  After that I was so paranoid about losing the stone again, that I have it in the safety deposit box and I wear the anniversary ring.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2018, 09:43:17 AM »

From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
What I hear you saying is that the ring was the tipping point.  The ring was the moment he recognized the pattern and saw the light.

Yes exactly!

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4147
  • Age: 38
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2018, 05:07:26 PM »
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.

I got a smallish split shank solitaire ring when I got engaged and many years later, I still love it.  I didn't care about the size, in fact I got many compliments on it, but I gave no s**ts about people who thought it was too small and therefore some reflection on my husband that he didn't give me something bigger.   I didn't want my husband to spend beyond his means, in fact, I told him I was OK without one or even just a gemstone ring but he really wanted to get me a diamond. 

My so-called "upgrade" was ten years later when I got an anniversary ring that was still small and cost less than the engagement ring.  I got it after I temporarily lost the diamond at work and found it....in my wastebasket.  After that I was so paranoid about losing the stone again, that I have it in the safety deposit box and I wear the anniversary ring.
Kinda hoping that happens for us - wife's replacement ring showed up a week or so ago. Maybe when we move it will find its way out of whatever corner it is hiding in.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8438
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2018, 05:21:19 PM »
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
 

So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.

It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.

So reusing a ring once is too far??? Should your sister's boyfriend have tossed the ring in the ocean instead of re-using it? Should your sister's boyfriend's ex-fiance kept the ring after the failed engagement?

None of this sounds very Mustachian.
I wouldn't want a recycled ring from a fiance, who most likely specifically picked it out for another woman - because he thought she'd like it.  Or he was thinking of her when he bought it.  Or she picked it out.  It's icky.

I wouldn't mind a recycled STONE, however.  Assuming the stone was an average size and generic (not massive, not a weird shape or anything, I'm not picky) - just put it in a different setting.

wbranch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Some Mountain Ridge
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2018, 12:56:49 PM »
Who would want to hire a lawyer that got himself into this mess? Plenty of signs that he should have never bought a ring early on. Hard to feel bad for anyone involved.

freedomfightergal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2019, 01:33:36 PM »
I would totally return the ring, (and have).   The only time I may not is if I had paid a fortune in wedding costs that were unrecoverable.  Maybe her family had bought the wedding dress, paid deposit for venue etc and it balanced out?

It's a huge warning sign she was so into the value.  I remember saying I just wanted a nice looking ring.  I didn't even care if was real, or huge, just something pretty.  The meaning was worth more to me and should be to the girl you ask.  If she's concerned about cost, run!!

saguaro

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #76 on: January 02, 2019, 03:20:30 PM »
I would totally return the ring, (and have).   The only time I may not is if I had paid a fortune in wedding costs that were unrecoverable.  Maybe her family had bought the wedding dress, paid deposit for venue etc and it balanced out?

It's a huge warning sign she was so into the value.  I remember saying I just wanted a nice looking ring.  I didn't even care if was real, or huge, just something pretty.  The meaning was worth more to me and should be to the girl you ask.  If she's concerned about cost, run!!

When I broke things off with ex-fiance, I returned the ring.  Only right thing to do IMHO.

When DH and I got engaged, I told him I didn't have to have a ring.  We were both a year out of college, in our first post-college jobs so there wasn't a lot of money.   He insisted on getting me something, so I told him "just don't go overboard financially on this". 

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14082
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2019, 08:05:49 AM »
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?

AllOfTheDogs

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #78 on: January 04, 2019, 09:52:45 AM »
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?

It looks like Defendant Dickens did not respond to the complaint, so Strasser has been ordered to move for entry of default judgment. Here's my attempt at providing the 12/28/2018 order of the court: https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/5c2e47e9b0223c7f337f583c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.dcd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04516935651&label=Case+Filing

I'm a long time lurker, but first time poster. So apologies if the link doesn't work.

YW55

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Houston, TX
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #79 on: January 04, 2019, 11:26:29 AM »
If the ring cost $100K alone then imagine how much she would have wanted to spend on the wedding. He dodged a cannon ball for only $100K.

Also he said he'll be stuck paying off the ring only until 2020. If he got her preggers then he would've been stuck with her forever.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14082
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #80 on: January 04, 2019, 07:14:40 PM »
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?

It looks like Defendant Dickens did not respond to the complaint, so Strasser has been ordered to move for entry of default judgment. Here's my attempt at providing the 12/28/2018 order of the court: https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/5c2e47e9b0223c7f337f583c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.dcd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04516935651&label=Case+Filing

I'm a long time lurker, but first time poster. So apologies if the link doesn't work.
Paywall. Bummer, but thanks for the update!

Rocketman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2019, 11:36:17 AM »
I just have to chuckle at many of comments about using a ring that was given to another.
I got engaged way too early (19).  Got a nice ring and gave it to her. Well after a few months she broke off the engagement and returned the ring.

A few years later I proposed to my wife. She accepted. I told her I would sell the old ring and buy her one. She asked to see it, so I showed it to her. She LOVED it and said that is exactly the style and type of ring she wanted. It was even the correct ring size. So we used that ring.

Now over 25 years later I know I married the right woman for me.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2019, 12:34:04 PM »
I just have to chuckle at many of comments about using a ring that was given to another.
I got engaged way too early (19).  Got a nice ring and gave it to her. Well after a few months she broke off the engagement and returned the ring.

A few years later I proposed to my wife. She accepted. I told her I would sell the old ring and buy her one. She asked to see it, so I showed it to her. She LOVED it and said that is exactly the style and type of ring she wanted. It was even the correct ring size. So we used that ring.

Now over 25 years later I know I married the right woman for me.

She's a keeper!  I also had a broken engagement and got the ring back...  I just could not do it.  I didn't even re-use the diamond.  It would have been something I could never get off my mind...

Dee

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 799
  • Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2019, 03:43:05 PM »
It's funny, I read this whole thread and until someone else mentioned it having happened to them, I forgot I had received an engagement ring, too, and subsequently, my then-bf an I broke up. I don't even remember for sure what happened to the ring! I think I gave it back. But it's so distant now that I'm not even sure. And I was so heart-broken at the time. I didn't think I actually wanted to spend my whole life with that person but I also found the break up so painful.

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2019, 10:05:39 AM »
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.

Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.

And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.

This deserves to be in the "best thing I've read today" thread. 

I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2019, 10:33:50 AM »
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.

Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.

And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.

This deserves to be in the "best thing I've read today" thread. 

I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14082
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2019, 11:28:30 AM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2019, 01:33:13 PM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2019, 04:40:21 PM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains

If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.

At myself.

For making friends with someone with more money than brains.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2019, 05:15:22 PM »
A lot of old houses in Norway have a “nice living/dining room” that is only used at special occasions. It is not so much a sign of wealth, but more a need to limit the space you heat. You can even find these arrangements in small cottages of <100m2 where you sleep in the loft. It was always fun as a child to sneak into these rooms, since that was where the grandparents kept the fragile treasures safe from children, like carved items, porcelain cups, embroidered pillows etc. But I can still feel the icy coldness of a room not heated for years.

Being received in the nice room wasn’t necessarily a good sign. It could be a way to signal that you were not part of the family, or someone considered a (potential) friend.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14082
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2019, 06:06:13 PM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
Wow! DH and I have looked at thousands of houses (really) and never seen such a thing. However, we tend to look only at things we can afford. We particularly eschew behemoth McMansions, which is easier to do because there simply aren't as many in our HCOLA. Oh, wait! I can think of one we've been to. It's on the Central Coast. Was owned by some newspaper mogul...a guy named Hearst. Oh yes, that's it: Hearst Castle. Not expecting an invitation there any time soon. And then there's Filoli over on the Peninsula and hmmm, The Huntington Library in San Marino. Yeah, not on any of those guest lists. However, I believe all three of those guys had plenty of money and brains. Still way outta my league.

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2019, 10:48:56 AM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains

If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.

At myself.

For making friends with someone with more money than brains.

Lol, same.  I haven't spent any time with that friend for ages, but he seems way more down to earth now, and nobody I know actually owns a place like that.  I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone who thought they needed to spend waste that kind of money on something so useless just to impress rich people.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2019, 11:07:28 AM »
I think even the Biltmore estate, if you do not include the servants eating area, only has one dining room (Great Banquet Hall). Therefore I declare more than one dining room gauche (though it's OK to have dining room and also breakfast, eating nook in kitchen)

;)

mmm-good enough for the Biltmores, good enough for me-partgypsy

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4214
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2019, 11:51:07 AM »
All it would take is to go to one of the big real estate listing websites and look at the most expensive houses for sale in your area. Do a personal website look-see that lasts until you don't care anymore...

The fanciest house for sale here ($1.3M and 6K sq ft) has in kitchen eating along the kitchen island, a "casual" dining area along the wall in the kitchen and then a formal dining room separate from the kitchen. Yep, I just lost interest. ;)



Edited b/c I temporarily forgot how to write in English.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 01:30:58 PM by Just Joe »

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Jilted Biglaw Associate Sues Ex-Fiancee Over $100K Engagement Ring
« Reply #94 on: January 08, 2019, 12:04:42 PM »
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one.  He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing.  I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better

what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.

Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains

If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.

At myself.

For making friends with someone with more money than brains.

Lol, same.  I haven't spent any time with that friend for ages, but he seems way more down to earth now, and nobody I know actually owns a place like that.  I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone who thought they needed to spend waste that kind of money on something so useless just to impress rich people.

Grew up in a home that had a separate living room and a formal dining table room and both were hardly ever used. My parents did entertain at least once a month and that was it, beyond that it was mostly a place for me to go to do homework as there wasn't a TV in that room but even then I preferred to do my work either in the basement, my bedroom, or in the study (which had a computer).  Absolute waste of money imho.