Yahoo! Shine reported that a recently dumped woman in New York received a ruling in her favor from the court that would allow her to keep the white-gold, 2.97-carat ring worth $53,000 given to her by her ex-fiance. New York State Supreme Court Justice Russell Buscaglia late last week decided that 38 year-old nail technician Christa M Clark should not return her ring following a broken engagement with 55 year-old Chef's Restaurant co-owner Louis J Billittier Jr.
According to Buffalo News, who first reported the lawsuit, Billittier Jr sued her ex-fiancee when the latter refused to return the ring after they have broken up in July 2012. According to the judge, Billittier Jr's texts to the defendant had allowed Clark to keep the ring without violating the state's established law.
Buffalo News said that based on a New York statute, would-be grooms are allowed to reclaim the engagement ring back from their fiancees even if they were the ones who had called off the wedding.
Yahoo! Shine said that according to the lawsuit, Billittier Jr had broken up with Clark after a three-year relationship over a text message. Clark was reportedly taken aback at the way how her former fiance called off the wedding. In their early text exchanges, Billittier Jr promised to reimburse the money Clark has spent for their wedding preparations. The following text message had made Buscaglia to decide in favor of Clark.
The text read, "Plus you get a $50,000 parting ring. Enough for a down payment on a house."
The breakup was, as in most cases, turned bitter when Clark allegedly took personal shots at her ex-fiance, Buffalo News said. After a few more threatening exchanges from Billittier Jr, Clark was sued.
Yahoo! Shine said that based on documents emailed from Buscaglia's office, the would-be groom usually gets the ring back unless the intent of the ring has changed. Buscaglia wrote in his ruling, "Many gifts are given for reasons that sour with the passage of time. Unfortunately, the gift law does not allow a donor to recover or revoke...a gift simply because his or her reasons for giving it have soured."
