East News
Unhappy Valentine: Wedding's Off, Pa. Law Says Ring to be Returned
February 15, 2006
If the wedding is off, the engagement ring must be returned, state law says, but a broken engagement and ensuing legal battle over a $35,000 ring may change that.
Mario Mele, a former Montgomery County commissioner who owns a dental insurance agency, met Janet Grace, of Philadelphia, a construction manager, in December 2004. Last spring, he gave her a 2 1/2-carat princess cut diamond set in hand-crafted platinum.
Less than two months later, he asked for it back.
Grace, who had designed the ring, refused, sold the diamond, and replaced it in the setting with a cubic zirconia.
Mele sued her, seeking the $35,000 appraised value of the ring plus $100,000 in damages, saying he was subjected to humiliation, anxiety "and other personal injuries.''
The state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that an engagement ring was a conditional gift. "The woman must return it if the marriage does not occur, even if the donor broke the engagement,'' Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote.
Justice Ralph J. Cappy said in a dissent that was contrary to centuries of tradition that said whoever breaks a pledge of marriage should be the one to give up the ring.
Grace said Mele had asked that her ring be the only diamond ring she would own, so she had given five rings to charity and one to a niece, about $20,000 worth of jewelry in all.
"My ring was not a gift. I had to give up something to receive it,'' Grace said. "If I had not given up anything, I would have been happy to give it back.''
Mele's lawsuit argues that Grace disregarded his rights out of "personal spite and greed.''
State Sen. Joe Conti, R-Bucks, got wind of the dispute, and his office is drafting legislation that could be introduced as soon as next month.
Possible options include requiring jewelers to post notices about the law, and publishing consumer protection pamphlets, said Vicki Wilken, Conti's legislative counsel.
"It's not widely known,'' Wilken said. "I didn't know it, and we want to educate people so they don't end up in the same situation as Janet.''
___
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article
| Subject |
Posted By |
Posted On |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Ozymandias |
Feb 24, 2006, 1:35 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Just being real |
Feb 21, 2006, 2:01 pm |
| Insurable Interest |
Big Insurance |
Feb 21, 2006, 1:58 pm |
| RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Jack J Maniscalco |
Feb 21, 2006, 7:08 am |
| RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Judy |
Feb 21, 2006, 6:40 am |
| bitches? |
Don'tlikenamecalling |
Feb 17, 2006, 1:08 pm |
| RE: Justice Ralph J. Cappy-Crappy idiot |
J |
Feb 17, 2006, 12:52 pm |
| Justice Ralph J. Cappy-Crappy idiot |
Smitty |
Feb 17, 2006, 11:42 am |
| RE: Uh, T.Major...I've got another shocker for you... |
Thought |
Feb 17, 2006, 9:24 am |
| Uh, T.Major...I've got another shocker for you... |
Been Married 5 times |
Feb 16, 2006, 8:24 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Engagement Ring Controversy |
Crying here in PA |
Feb 16, 2006, 7:02 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Engagement Ring Controversy |
compman |
Feb 16, 2006, 6:58 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Engagement Ring Controversy |
Crying here in PA |
Feb 16, 2006, 6:46 pm |
| RE: RE: Engagement Ring Controversy |
Jack J Maniscalco |
Feb 16, 2006, 5:28 pm |
| RE: Engagement Ring Controversy |
T Major |
Feb 16, 2006, 5:23 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: This story |
lack of class |
Feb 16, 2006, 4:37 pm |
| RE: RE: This story |
J |
Feb 16, 2006, 3:29 pm |
| RE: This story |
jdun1 |
Feb 16, 2006, 2:15 pm |
| This story |
What's up? |
Feb 16, 2006, 2:06 pm |
| RE: post a warning? |
Jack J Maniscalco |
Feb 16, 2006, 12:57 pm |
| post a warning? |
married twice |
Feb 16, 2006, 12:53 pm |
| RE: RE: Wait a minute.... |
Ward |
Feb 16, 2006, 11:12 am |
| RE: Wait a minute.... |
tom |
Feb 16, 2006, 10:27 am |
| Wait a minute.... |
Amazed |
Feb 16, 2006, 9:45 am |
| Ring |
Happily married |
Feb 16, 2006, 8:37 am |
| Keep the ring but give him back the diamond? |
Now why didn't she just... |
Feb 15, 2006, 11:19 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Amanda |
Feb 15, 2006, 5:22 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
compman |
Feb 15, 2006, 5:18 pm |
| What if they had kids? |
Shocked at the whole issue! |
Feb 15, 2006, 5:04 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Ron |
Feb 15, 2006, 2:59 pm |
| RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Claude Miller |
Feb 15, 2006, 2:36 pm |
| RE: a $35,000 ring? |
married twice |
Feb 15, 2006, 2:10 pm |
| Engagement Ring Controversy |
Been married 5 times |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:56 pm |
| Ignorance of the law |
CrunchMaster |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:56 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
diamond jim |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:48 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Darwin |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:40 pm |
| RE: RE: a $35,000 ring? |
Banana |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:12 pm |
| RE: a $35,000 ring? |
compman |
Feb 15, 2006, 1:07 pm |
| a $35,000 ring? |
Married with Children |
Feb 15, 2006, 12:41 pm |
Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article