Woman dumps still-married man, keeps ring

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060707/ap_on_...gagement_ring_1

Parker, of Charleston, South Carolina, and Callahan, of Manhattan, met on the Internet in September 2001 and started dating a month later. After they got engaged in July 2002 in South Carolina, she moved to New York to live with him, the judge wrote.

Parker, a mortgage broker, dumped Callahan, who works in the financial services industry, after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married, said her lawyer, Kevin Conway.

[Fandango 1,439]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Edited July 8, 2006 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

[Fandango 1,439]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

[Fandango 1,439]

NEW YORK - A woman who found out that the man who proposed to her was still 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.

Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice 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 and she did not have to return the ring.

Parker, of Charleston, South Carolina, and Callahan, of Manhattan, met on the Internet in September 2001 and started dating a month later. After they got engaged in July 2002 in South Carolina, she moved to New York to live with him, the judge wrote.

Parker, a mortgage broker, dumped Callahan, who works in the financial services industry, after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married, said her lawyer, Kevin Conway.

Callahan, 36, sued in July 2003 to get back the ring — or alternatively $40,000 — after Parker had left him the previous month. He also sought the return of his personal property, including antique lamps, candle holders and a brass box.

Parker's lawyer argued in court papers that because Callahan was still married to another woman in Massachusetts, the diamond ring could not be an engagement gift "in contemplation of marriage." Rather, he said, it was just a gift and she was entitled to keep it.

"If you're married, you are legally prohibited from entering into another contract to get married," Conway said. "What happened here was he entered another contract to marry while he misrepresented what his true legal status was."

The judge agreed. He noted that Callahan had gotten in Massachusetts in June 2002 a judgment of divorce nisi, meaning the severance from his wife had been approved but would not be official and absolute for another 90 days.

But citing a Massachusetts case that he said was consistent with New York law, the judge wrote that "a couple is not divorced until the judgment becomes absolute."

Callahan's lawyer, Daniel Clement, said his client had not decided whether to appeal.

Clement said he believes that although one cannot marry during the 90 days between the divorce approval and the final decree, one can get engaged.

The judge said that although Parker could keep the ring, she had to return Callahan's personal property.

The original article tells a somewhat different story than what I gleaned from reading the bit you c&pd. The headline (to me) seems a bit sensationalistic...like OH MY GOD MAN WHO'S STILL MARRIED GETS ENGAGED. As if he were leading a dual life. After all, if it made yahoo news, I was expecting something ridiculous.

The simple fact is that his divorce was not totally finalized when he proposed. It really has made no mention of whether or not Callahan testified that the new fiancee was or was not told of the previous marriage. Now it could be true, or it may not be true....and the fact that they're fighting over a 40k ring leads me to beleive that there is motive to possibly lie. Is it not just as possible that she saw him looking at some piccies on the net & got her panties in a wad & left? Who knows! Do I think he's a b@stard? No...I don't know who's telling the truth and who's not since there is so much room for speculation because all we have is hearsay.

So yeah, not as clean cut as having a wife in Long Island....and me sitting on the fence should say NOTHING about what I would or would not tolerate in my own life. So please try not to read too much into my posts. I believe the people here will attest to the fact that subtlety is not my strong suit I'm about as subtle as a mack truck.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

Maybe you weren't very clear (I have no idea what 'nisi' is), but your above statement sounds like you are saying it's not that big of a deal that he was married before since he was in the process of a divorce. The issue is that he wants the 40g's engagement ring back because she was the one breaking off the engagement, however, she had reasonable grounds for doing so (his lack of disclosure of his marriage and that he was trolling for other women). So now tell me again why you normally would applaud but not in this case?

[Fandango 1,439]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

Maybe you weren't very clear (I have no idea what 'nisi' is), but your above statement sounds like you are saying it's not that big of a deal that he was married before since he was in the process of a divorce. The issue is that he wants the 40g's engagement ring back because she was the one breaking off the engagement, however, she had reasonable grounds for doing so (his lack of disclosure of his marriage and that he was trolling for other women). So now tell me again why you normally would applaud but not in this case?

A 'nisi' was explained within the article you pasted a link to....

As for the rest...I answered it already...scroll up

If I'm not clear in future, please ask me to clarify before you put words in my mouth tho

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

Maybe you weren't very clear (I have no idea what 'nisi' is), but your above statement sounds like you are saying it's not that big of a deal that he was married before since he was in the process of a divorce. The issue is that he wants the 40g's engagement ring back because she was the one breaking off the engagement, however, she had reasonable grounds for doing so (his lack of disclosure of his marriage and that he was trolling for other women). So now tell me again why you normally would applaud but not in this case?

A 'nisi' was explained within the article you pasted a link to....

As for the rest...I answered it already...scroll up

If I'm not clear in future, please ask me to clarify before you put words in my mouth tho

The judge ruled in her favor stating that the man was misrepresenting himself. Whether she knew about the previous marriage (my hunch is she didn't - they met online - people tend to omit a lot of things), really is moot because while he was legally still married, he's proposing marriage to someone else. Most cases with regard to who keeps the engagement ring - go in favor of the fiancee. My opinion - unless the guy can demonstrate that she misrepresented herself (cheating, being married already), she should keep the ring even if she calls off the wedding.

Edited July 8, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[iceyspots 0]

Arent there even people on VJ who have already met their next significant other before they decide to finally terminate their current/previous marriage?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

Maybe you weren't very clear (I have no idea what 'nisi' is), but your above statement sounds like you are saying it's not that big of a deal that he was married before since he was in the process of a divorce. The issue is that he wants the 40g's engagement ring back because she was the one breaking off the engagement, however, she had reasonable grounds for doing so (his lack of disclosure of his marriage and that he was trolling for other women). So now tell me again why you normally would applaud but not in this case?

A 'nisi' was explained within the article you pasted a link to....

As for the rest...I answered it already...scroll up

If I'm not clear in future, please ask me to clarify before you put words in my mouth tho

The judge ruled in her favor stating that the man was misrepresenting himself. Whether she knew about the previous marriage (my hunch is she didn't - they met online - people tend to omit a lot of things), really is moot because while he was legally still married, he's proposing marriage to someone else. Most cases with regard to who keeps the engagement ring - go in favor of the fiancee. My opinion - unless the guy can demonstrate that she misrepresented herself (cheating, being married already), she should keep the ring even if she calls off the wedding.

A lot of assumptions are being made here. Met online in 2001 and began dating a month later, suggests many months in which they had contact other than in the Cyber world before the purported engagement. The story claims she moved in with him after becoming engaged in July 2002 and left him the following year. There was no mention of his failure to disclose his marriage in the article, as far as I can recollect, but I sense the fiancée took issue with the fact that he was not legally divorced at the time he became engaged.

[tmma 467]

Arent there even people on VJ who have already met their next significant other before they decide to finally terminate their current/previous marriage?

Icey-you hit on the thought I was having. I bet there are a bunch of people waiting out the divorce finalization process whilst being engaged to someone else......

Edited July 8, 2006 by tmma

[Fandango 1,439]

Well normally I'd applaud, but he got a judgement of divorce nisi the month before they got engaged...so yeah, 60 days too soon, but it's not like he was hiding a wife in Brooklyn or anything.

Uh, hello? So, you'd be okay if your fiance kept the fact that he'd been married before from you? Wow....

Uh hello? Show me where I said that?

Maybe you weren't very clear (I have no idea what 'nisi' is), but your above statement sounds like you are saying it's not that big of a deal that he was married before since he was in the process of a divorce. The issue is that he wants the 40g's engagement ring back because she was the one breaking off the engagement, however, she had reasonable grounds for doing so (his lack of disclosure of his marriage and that he was trolling for other women). So now tell me again why you normally would applaud but not in this case?

A 'nisi' was explained within the article you pasted a link to....

As for the rest...I answered it already...scroll up

If I'm not clear in future, please ask me to clarify before you put words in my mouth tho

The judge ruled in her favor stating that the man was misrepresenting himself. Whether she knew about the previous marriage (my hunch is she didn't - they met online - people tend to omit a lot of things), really is moot because while he was legally still married, he's proposing marriage to someone else. Most cases with regard to who keeps the engagement ring - go in favor of the fiancee. My opinion - unless the guy can demonstrate that she misrepresented herself (cheating, being married already), she should keep the ring even if she calls off the wedding.

Have you read your own link? The judge ruled in her favor because of the argument that a married person cannot legally enter into a marriage contract, thus making the ring not conditional upon marriage. Also, precedent was cited that one is not legally divorced until it is absolute. He had been approved for divorce the month before he was engaged....but it wasn't completely final yet. Again, with the nisi (as explained in the article) it would take 90 days.

Here is the crux of the case:

"If you're married, you are legally prohibited from entering into another contract to get married," Conway said. "What happened here was he entered another contract to marry while he misrepresented what his true legal status was."

The judge agreed. He noted that Callahan had gotten in Massachusetts in June 2002 a judgment of divorce nisi, meaning the severance from his wife had been approved but would not be official and absolute for another 90 days.

It really - to me - seems superfluous whether or not the woman knew about the marriage...it was one tiny line in this article & seemingly not the basis for her argument anyways. It boiled down to a matter of law of whether or not a technically-married person can enter into an engagement contract with someone else. She was not granted the ring - according to the article - because she 'didn't know' whether or not he was married. And as I said before, the article makes no mention of whether or not the man admitted or denied that she knew. But it's besides the point anyways because, at best, is speculative hearsay.

As far as your 'hunch' I have to wonder what makes you think you know? Yes, I know what a hunch means...but to choose sides over what happened behind doors that you didn't know about seems odd to me. I couldn't tell you whether she knew or didn't know....because I wasn't there, I don't know them, etc...

Stick to the facts, they're much easier!

Edited July 8, 2006 by LisaD

[diadromous mermaid 36]

There are various laws that apply to engagement rings, relative to the state in which the contract for marriage is proposed. It's not simply as cut and dried as steven and jinkyt believes. It all boils down to what basis for law the state acknowledges, be it a condition of a contract, a gift, or an option to marriage.

One example, similar to the case in point is

"The Case of the Man Engaged Before He Was Divorced

In Marshall v. Cassano, the New York court took the majority approach as to how to characterize the engagement ring, deeming it a conditional gift. It also noted that New York generally follows a strict no-fault approach in deciding whether a ring must be returned.

One might initially guess that this would mean the giver — in this case, Joe Marshall, the plaintiff — would always win. But in this case, that guess would be wrong.

A New York statute governs the return of engagement rings. Under that statute, judges have discretion to order return of any gift made in contemplation of marriage, in the event the marriage never takes place. (Prior to the enactment of this statute, litigants in New York were not permitted to sue for the return of engagement rings.)

The purpose of New York's modern rule, the Court noted, is to return the parties to the status quo–the position they were in before becoming engaged–Dolores, without an $8,000 ring; Joe, with either the ring or $8,000 in his pocket.

But in Joe and Dolores' case, there was a twist: the rules governing the return of the ring once the condition of marriage failed did not straightforwardly apply. The court reasoned that because Joe was not free to marry at the time he extracted Dolores' promise to marry him, the ring he gave her could not have been given in consideration of marriage.

Instead, according to the court, the ring was simply a gift. And gifts cannot legally be taken back. (A court applying the modified fault approach would have reached the same result since it was Marshall who broke off the engagement; a court applying the unconditional gift approach would also have reached the same result.)"

more...

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/grossman/20011023.html

[*Robert* 2]

[Dina 0]

I'm about as subtle as a mack truck.

That's what we lilke about you, Lisa.