Before you jump to the answer and just say "it is not comm prop"...hear me out.

The ORIGINAL engagement / wedding ring we were married with was replaced several years into our marriage. We decided one day (on a whim) to upgrade her ring completely. So basically she has the old ring (cheap-o) and the new wedding ring set we (I) bought a few years ago ($7,000). To people like us...that is a LOT of money.

I've read a lot of things about "gifts" and "engagement rings". This is confusing because this replacement ring was purchased during our marriage with my funds (she doesn't have a job).

I don't want the ring - but I figured its worth should be calculated into our liquid equity since it is paid off and quite a high price item. Am I wrong?
She isn't actually arguing with me...her mother is.

Yes, you are wrong. You would be less wrong if you hadn't cheated on her. But still wrong.

Have the ring appraised. Jewelry goes down in value, but with the increase in precious metals, it may not have gone down as much as I would guess. If the appraised Fair Market Value (not replacement value) is a significant portion of your net worth, it probably should be considered common property.

However, keep in mind that if your wife chooses to fight you on it, you could spend a lot in lawyer's fees. So, if it's worth $5,000.00 you're stake could be $2,500. I cannot tell you how quickly an attorney will run through that money.

CWMI - we both cheated...but that really isn't our issue anyways. Thanks for your input.

Greengables - we talked about it a lot more and just decided we both have jewelry, watches, etc... that really just cancels each other's out - decided just to exclude all of it from comm property.

Capt76, that's probably a smart move. Just let it go.

Yes we both agreed it wasn't worth it to fight about it.
We're REALLY trying hard not to end this with fighting or any more hurt feelings that already experiencing. We don't hate each other and if we can get through this without that...we'll be doing good. We want to still share friends and social circles (in good time of course).

My XW's ring set was worth well over $7000, but however in the financial disclosure she claimed she "lost" them on one of her fornication dive trips.

She never had to prove a thing and the judge took HER word on everything.

Your soon to be XW is going to do whatever it takes to gain the financial advantage and the cards are stacked in her favor. All she has to do is lie.

Just FYI - usually anything that is a gift to one person, even if it came from the other is considered separate property. I imagine if you took it to court, the judge would consider it a gift.

I guess I aasumed that 'gift' would be the start of a covenant in which she didn't give herself to another man....Didn't work out that way,so I think the terms were violated, thus it should be marital property like anything else. My WW gave me her rings and I've saved them for my DD

grindnfool - well, we have a *legal* system, not a *justice* system, so while I agree with you, that's not necessarily the way the "law" sees it.

As for me, I have no kids with my STBX, and our rings aren't worth much, he never bought me an engagement ring and our wedding rings are plain titanium. I don't know if I'd ever be able to look at the inside engraving without pain. So I have no reason to try and hang on to them.

I'm not sure how I feel. Granted each of you has your own jewelery and that's not included. But isn't a wedding ring a bit different than a watch or a necklace? And if it's worth 5K and I purchsed it solely, I'd sure ask for it back or have it put on her list of assets.

Actually, I think jewelry might be included. The reason a man can give his wife a $20,000 necklace and not pay federal gift taxes on it is because it is considered marital property in the view of the federal government. The states may look at it differently, but it sounds like one of those battles that only the lawyers will win.

No it's not. A gift to your spouse is a standard exclusion.

Soooo...a nontaxable gift is excluded from property in a divorce?

Let's say a husband buys the wife a 10K ring and wife buys the husband a 10K car and a divorce comes around, the wife shouldn't ask for the car back or have it included as property just as the husband shouldn't ask for the ring back?

And why would the soon-to-be exwife want the ring if she's not going to be married anymore? This being specifically a wedding ring.

kt, I was arguing against GG's statement that the federal gov't doesn't impose a gift tax because it is considered marital property; they don't impose a gift tax because gifts to spouses are standard exclusions to the gift-tax rule, lumped right there with the others. Has nothing to do with divorce proceedings.

CWMI, where have you been lately?

on vacay, we went to Disney, t'was AWESOME.

I think it depends on the ring and the circumstance. If the ring is a family heirloom and the bride wanders off with no marital misconduct on the part of the husband, then I think the ring should go back to his family.

Now if he wanders off the reservation, then his family pays the price for his actions.

But if it's a ring one just bought at a jewelry store, I think it's a gift.

But what do I know, I'm not a judge. Because if I was, adulterers would get nothing but what they came into the marriage with. They couldn't take children, cars or homes from the betrayed spouse.

They would get a few things. Their share of the debt, a bill for spousal and/or child support. But nothing of value from the marriage if they can't keep their vows.

I'll end my rant now

I couldn't agree with you more!!! My uncle, who is a retired district judge, agreed with this when it came to my own case and WH walking out on our family. He felt my WH should get NOTHING and minimal contact with DD. Not sure how his rulings went in general, though (with cases not involving his family).