When Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got pursue the first sentence in 2002 , he gave her a very pricy anchor ring . That interlocking ring wasreportedly worthas much as $ 2.5 million , made by luxury jewelry maker Harry Winston and deck with a 6.1 - carat pinkdiamond .
After the film stars broke up in 2004 without getting marry , J. Lo said sheintended to return the ring " quietly"to Affleck .
Whethershe ever did that or not , was Lopez entitled to keep the that rock or any of the others she draw from hernumerous x - married man and former fiancés ?
The solution can matter to anyone who is engaged , married — or even call back about draw the knot . No one knows for certain how many engagements end in a breakup , although there are approximation that roughlyone in five do .
Aslaw professor who teach propertyandfamily law , we often talk to student — and our own relatives — about gift and marriage ceremony . student often ask us who possess the engagement ring if brace do n’t get marry or if they eventually divorce . They also want to have it away what happens if thering is stolen .
While taxes , legal philosophy and insurance are not very sexy topics , union has never been only about romance . It ’s also a partnership with economic repercussions .
Engagement Rings Were Rare Before the 20th Century
Engagement gang were pretty uncommon until about 100 years ago , even though the first diamond betrothal ring was apparently given byEmperor Maximilian to Mary of Burgundy in 1377 . But it was n’t until the end of theGreat Depressionthat asophisticated ad campaign created a marketfor baseball diamond engagement rings in the United States .
By 1940,10 percent of bridesreceived rhombus rings . That share startle to 80 percent by 1990 .
Perhaps propelled by the belief that a ring should costas much as a gentleman earns in three months , expensive diamond involution rings turn in popularity from 1935 to 1965 .
No Recourse for Jilted Grooms
Law prof Margaret Brinig has foundthat legal changes coincided with the new customs around the mid-20th 100 .
Specifically , Brinig channelise to the abolition of the lawsuits know as " breach of promise " actions , which could be filed after impoverished engagements .
That is , St. Bridget could keep annulus — even expensive ones — without getting conjoin .
This new convention , Brinig has written , could have served as a form ofcompensation if the bride had fall back her virginityafter getting engage . Should the marriage ceremony not happen , she ’d at least havesomething of value to have on to .
No-fault Engagements?
In the second one-half of the 20th century , U.S. divorcement laws changed and courtsstopped determining who was to blamewhen married couples founder up . In what come to be known asno - fault divorce , neither spouse had to prove the other had cheated or been cruel to them .
And , aslaw prof Rebecca Tushnet documents , many courts have applied a similar " no - fault " framework to broken engagements . That mean itdoesn’t matter who break it offor why .
Inaddressing that formula in 1997 , three judges on a Pennsylvania superior court force on the story of Adam and Eve , meandered into Roman times and then announce " the gift of the ring to [ the bride ] at the time of their betrothal was subject to an implied stipulation require its coming back if the wedding did not take place . "
And that was in a case in which a gentleman who had proposed to his girlfriend called off the troth double .
court of law inIowa , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippiand other states have issued similar ruling .
Different States, Different Stakes
But theSupreme Court of Montanaheld in 2002 that an ex - fiancée could keep her conflict ring after a breakup . note that women " often still take over the bulk of pre - wedding costs , " the court press out concerns that treating engagement rings as gift conditional upon man and wife could perpetuate sexuality bias .
And a Texas courtruled a year later that someone who gave an engagement ring to his fiancée and then later on called off the wedding was not title to its return .
In California , a state law ordain in 1939 providesthat an interlocking anchor ring must be returned if the marriage is broken off by common consent or the individual who received an engagement closed chain initiates the separation .
Regardless of where you live , if you ’re de jure obligated to return an engagement anchor ring and fail to do so , you may be on the hook formonetary damages . This can lead to financial grimness when hoop are mislay , stolen orintentionally thrown away .
Tax Consequences
If one soul keeps the ring after a breakup , there may begift tax consequencesfor the person who bought the anchor ring . But that ’s only if the ring costs more than $ 17,000 and there are alot of variable star and loopholesthat can reduce the chance that a spurned x would ever owe any money to the Internal Revenue Service .
Anyone can make giftsworthup to $ 17,000 per yr , as of 2023 , to anyone else without obtain consequences . gift worth more than that threshold are formally subject to a gift tax andthe IRS requiresthat taxpayer report the amount of those endowment annually .
As of 2023 , taxpayers also may give away endowment totaling$12.92 millionduring their whole lifetimes , or after death in their volition , with no taxation - related consequences .
But gifts of $ 17,000 or more will eat into that credit .
Planning Ahead
Anyone who gets engaged caninsure a mob .
And while no readers should see this article as asource of personal sound advice , we do note that engaged duad can coiffe their own rules . Courts will generally impose written agreements reached between two people who plan on getting conjoin that stipulate who gets the ring after a breakup .
We understand that such paperwork might not materialise during a fourth dimension of bent knees and joyful celebration . We also get that what people do with their rings when an engagement is name off is n’t just a matter of what the jurisprudence ask .
Few Such Lawsuits
Perhaps not surprisingly , we have found relatively few suit in which someone sue an ex-wife over this issue .
Not even Ben Affleck did that . Had he tried to sue J. Lo in 2004 in a California court , he might have make headway . But his success would have change state on how the engagement stop .
Besides , as you may have heard , the high - profile couplereunited in 2021and married in 2022 .
The second engagement ring Affleck yield Lopez is a rarefied 8.5 - carat green diamond with two livid trillion - slew diamond side stonesreportedly deserving $ 5 million . J. Lo gets to keep it forever now that she ’s saying her name isMrs . Jennifer Lynne Affleck .
This clause is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license . you’re able to find theoriginal articlehere .
Naomi Cahnis a constabulary professor at the University of Virginia . She is an expert in home law , trusts and estates , feminist law , reproductive engineering , and ageing and the law .
Julia D. Mahoneyis a jurisprudence professor at the University of Virginia where she teach courses in property , administration finance , built-in constabulary and nonprofit organisation .
