Posted on 07/08/2006 5:09:43 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Woman dumps man, keeps ring
By SAMUEL MAULL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A woman who found out that the man who proposed to her was married can keep the $40,000 engagement ring he gave her, even though she was the one who broke off the relationship, a judge has ruled.
Judge Rolando T. Acosta said that because Brian Callahan was still married when he gave Dana Clyburn Parker a 3.41-carat diamond engagement ring, the agreement to marry was void.
Acosta noted that Callahan was in the process of getting a divorce in Massachusetts when he proposed. In June 2002, Callahan, of Manhattan, received a judgment of divorce nisi, meaning the divorce from his wife had been approved but would not be official and absolute for another 90 days.
That July, Callahan, 36, and Parker, of Charleston, S.C., got engaged in South Carolina and she moved to New York to live with him, the judge wrote. They had met on the Internet in September 2001.
Parker, a mortgage broker, dumped Callahan after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married, her lawyer, Kevin Conway, said Friday.
Callahan, who works in the financial services industry, sued in July 2003 to get back the ring or alternatively $40,000 and his personal property. While the judge allowed Parker to keep the ring, he ordered her to return Callahan's personal property.
Callahan's lawyer said his client had not decided whether to appeal.
I would ass ume that his CURRENT WIFE will make sure of it... (so that SHE GETS THE RING (before starting divorce proceedings herself!!!).
Ah but what kind of a married man is sooo stupid that he gives his girlfriend a $40 000 engagement ring, but doesn't trust her enough to tell her that he's still married?
Didn't he ever hear of CubicZirconium?
;-)
My understanding of this matter as it's described in the article is that he proposed to her at a point during divorce proceedings when the process was over,save for a "standard" (my word) 90 day waiting period.
The piece,by my reading,doesn't specify whether he failed to tell her that he had ever been married (to his then "wife") or had failed to tell her that his divorce wasn't quite complete or,perhaps,had lied to her by telling her that the divorce was final when,in fact,it was within 90 days of being final.
The woman had good reason for dumping the guy regardless of the divorce issue.Cruising for babes on the web while engaged (or even dating) clearly stinks.But given what I see in the article,I'm far from certain that she has a *moral* right to keep the ring in light of the judge's narrow ruling.
maybe, but I am Catholic, and knowing a person is divorced or still married makes a difference to me...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.