Tag Archives: engagement

Child Support, General Legal

When do YOU get to Keep the Ring?

Leave a comment

I have written about when you do NOT get to keep the ring. The Mississippi Supreme Court has affirmed a time when you do…

images3.jpg

In the case of Cummins v. Goolsby, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the “fiancee”  keeping the ring even though the parties did not get married. However, there was a catch.  The groom-to-be was married to another at the time of the engagement!

In fact at the time of the appeal, the groom-to-be was still married. The Court’s rationale was that conditioning a gift on marriage when one cannot lawfully marry violates public policy and constitutes unclean hands. Thus, the chancellor did not err when awarding the ring to the now “ex-fiancee.”

Also, the Court ruled that the groom-to-be now father, was not entitled to a credit of the value of the ring against child support owed for the child he had with his “ex-fiancee.”

There are several lessons to be learned from this case…

Matthew Thompson is a child custody and matrimonial lawyer in Mississippi.

Divorce, Marriage

If You Don’t Get Married You Don’t Get to Keep the Ring.

1 Comment

The engagement ring. A circle, no beginning and no end. A diamond, one of the Earth’s most precious stones. However, if you don’t get married it goes back.

A very recent Mississippi Court of Appeals case reaffirmed Mississippi law on the engagement ring.  In Cooley vs. Tucker, 200 So.3d 474, (Miss. App. 2016), the fellow, Tucker, gave a $40,000.00 ring to Cooley in 2011.  He broke off the engagement in 2014. Cooley wore the ring the entirety of the engagement and the parties discussed wedding arrangements.

After calling off the wedding, Tucker requested the ring back and Cooley refused claiming it was a gift. To be a a valid gift the following is required:”(1) a donor competent to make a gift; (2) a voluntary act of the donor with donative intent;(3) the gift must be complete with nothing else to be done; (4) there must be delivery to the donee; and (5) the gift must be irrevocable.” Id.

The Court reasoned it was not a gift, in that it was a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage. Because no marriage occurred the gift condition was never satisfied. The ring must be returned. Cooley also argued that the Court should weigh in on the reasons for the marriage not occurring in the first place, meaning whose fault was it. The Court said, “We decline to do so.” Id. Did you get married? If no, the ring goes back.

Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi Family Law Attorney and cautions you to be careful who you marry and also be careful to whom you become engaged.

img_6390

 

Divorce, General Legal, humor, Marriage

Why Putting Your Engagement on FaceBook May be a Bad Idea.

1 Comment

It seems our “lives” are lived on FaceBook, for better and for worse.

A short marriage came to an abrupt end when the parties realized that they did not really know each other. It was not a first marriage for either party, a whirlwind courtship and a tumultuous coupling that lead to separation after 9 months.

The husband sought an easy “no-fault” divorce. She would keep hers plus he pays her some starting over money, he keep his and they go their separate ways. She did not respond.

Well, she actually hired a lawyer and sued him for everything; a fault based divorce, 1/2 of the house, 1/2 of his retirement, that he buy her a car, permanent alimony, plus she retains all of her stuff. Again, all of this based on a 9 month marriage. It’s important to note that he had the house prior to marriage, the bulk of the retirement prior to marriage and the car was a lease that was to be turned in.

She was aggressive to a fault. She sought a temporary hearing and asked for temporary alimony. She didn’t get it. We then went through the discovery process. We sought records, arrest and otherwise.

Finally, a break through…she posted on FaceBook that she was engaged! To her Soulmate!

I sent her lawyer a note.  It said “Great news! I hear congratulations are in order. Your client has announced her engagement. Attached are the pictures she posted, plus a pic of an impressive engagement ring…it’s high time this case settle. Attached is our proposal to settle all issues. Please review, sign where indicated and return to me. In the event this does not resolve this matter we will be filing an Amended Answer and Counterclaim consistent with these revelations.“

The case settled that day via an easy “no-fault” divorce. She kept hers plus he paid her some starting over money, he kept his and they went their separate ways.

Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi Divorce Attorney and is equally grateful and frustrated that FaceBook exists.

img_6390

Divorce, General Legal

Engaged!

Leave a comment

Will you Marry me?

imgres.jpg

If you said “yes” we may just be engaged!

Engagement is defined as a mutual promise or covenant to marry. See Black’s Law Dictionary.

Interestingly, there is no requirement that a date be set, that either of us have the present ability to fulfill said mutual promise, and there is nothing you can really do to enforce it if either of us change our mind.

Often in divorce papers, there is a prohibition against having a person with whom you are romantically involved, but not married or related to stay overnight where the minor child is. Less often, this prohibition excludes someone that you are engaged to, but that may be something that the other party can manipulate.

So are you engaged? If your papers have the language that allows a fiance’ to be around and have additional rights, I suggest it be legit, have a date set or in mind and please be sure you know the person that you intend to marry and make it work this time.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and encourages you to get engaged and married, just make sure it’s to the right person!

Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

black-bow

Divorce, General Legal, Marriage, Opinion

Ringing In Valentine’s Day; Who gets the Ring when things go Wrong?

Leave a comment

Valentine’s Day is one of the most popular days to get engaged!  Along with Christmas and New Years, Valentine’s Day is the holiday for popping the question.  But who gets the RING if things don’t pan out?

In Mississippi, the ring is a pre-marriage gift.  It can be argued that the ring is actually a conditional gift creating a contractual obligation.  How Romantic!

Here’s the scenario.  An offer of marriage is proposed and a ring given in exchange for a “Yes,” being an agreement to marry.  So long as both parties uphold their end; the fellow gives the ring and the lady marries the fellow = offer + acceptance & valuable consideration.  At this point the contract is fulfilled and the rings is now the property of the lady.  But what if they were only married for a minute?  Well, if they married the contract is fulfilled.  Certainly, there could be exceptions due to fraud or overreaching, but these are not typical.

The chancellor properly concluded that the engagement ring was a gift from [the fellow] to [the lady]. That gift necessarily predated the marriage of the parties. Thus, it was an asset brought by [the lady] into the marriage and was not a marital asset subject to equitable division. MacDonald v. MacDonald, 698 So.2d 1079 (¶ 13) (Miss.1997). It was, therefore, beyond the chancellor’s authority to order [the lady]  to return possession of that item to [the fellow] and the refusal to do so cannot constitute reversible error on appeal.  Neville v. Neville, 734 So.2d 352 (Ms.App. 1997).

Want to be safe, legally speaking anyway? Then make your marriage proposal contingent, as follows*:

 “Dearest One,

I love you and desire to marry you.   As a symbol of same, I am making a wholly contingent offer to you of this ring, of significant monetary and sentimental value, but a likewise sizable lien against same, in exchange for your promise to marry me. In the event that we do NOT get married, then said ring shall be returned to me in the same condition as presented, or alternatively you may elect to assume said lien, in full, for said ring and shall indemnify and defend me from any liability thereon.  ‘Will you accept this rose?'” *(a paraphrase of colleague J. Kitchens)

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that you can engage in the event you need a divorce, and if you use the above contingent marriage proposal, you just might!

img_2897