Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can’t put a price on love, but you can put a price on a breakup: $100,000.
Ryan Strasser, an associate with Troutman Sanders law firm in Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court in D.C. against his former fiancée, Sarah Jones Dickens, asking for the return of a 4.06-carat, $100,000 engagement ring, which he called a “conditional gift,” according to court documents. The couple was due to be married earlier this year and their relationship is outlined in sometimes excruciating detail.
Quote:
Strasser’s lawsuit details the evolution and eventual disintegration of the relationship in chilling legalese. “Defendant accepted the ring and the marriage proposal upon which the offer of the ring was predicated,” the suit states. “Roughly 11 months later, the parties’ marriage plans collapsed with a highly contentious break up that ended their engagement.
Quote:
Strasser claims in the suit that Dickens insisted that she deserved a “large” engagement ring because she did not believe in wasting money on a wedding and, for that reason, the couple should hold a smaller wedding and, instead, spend “extra” on an engagement ring, “something she would enjoy daily for the rest of her married life.” Strasser and Dickens then had a “preliminary discussion” about the parameters of an engagement ring.
Wow, I guess the saying is true: a fool and his money are soon parted. Why would anyone need such an expensive ring that depreciates as fast as a new car just driven off the lot?
Wow, I guess the saying is true: a fool and his money are soon parted. Why would anyone need such an expensive ring that depreciates as fast as a new car just driven off the lot?
It's not like buying a .25 ct ring at Zales.
This is a sizeable stone (4.06 ct) of quality. She asked for a stone no lower than VS2, so it would be eye clean with no inclusions visible to the naked eye. I would expect whoever ends up with it to be able to sell it for a substantial portion of its purchase price. The cut requested by the former fiancee isn't popular, though, so it will probably take longer to sell.
I personally think that he should be grateful that he got away with only a $100,000 loss. After a few years of marriage, she could probably have gotten millions.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50666
I thought that was the legal deal, with some degree of legal precedence.
If she breaks it off, he gets the ring back.
If he breaks it off, she has the option to keep it.
(And there it is, one more data point for the axiom, the bigger the stone the shorter the marriage. This one was so huge she didn't even make it down the aisle before calling the impending marriage off)
Wow, I guess the saying is true: a fool and his money are soon parted. Why would anyone need such an expensive ring that depreciates as fast as a new car just driven off the lot?
Humans "need" very little. Do you have things you don't "need?"
She musta been very good in bed to receive a 100k ring eh
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
