|
LAW OFFICE
OF
SUSAN CASTLETON RYAN, P.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE WEDDING IS OFF:
WHO GETS THE
ENGAGEMENT RING?
In a 1959 Massachusetts Supreme Court case, George DeCicco filed suit against E. Adele Barker
seeking the return of six engagement rings he had given in
contemplation of marriage. One of those rings was a six carat
diamond that George said he gave to Adele as an engagement ring, with
the condition that they would be married, and that the other rings
were gifts.
It is generally held that an engagement ring is a pledge, and it is
given on the implied condition that the marriage takes place.
In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary,
the gift of an engagement ring is conditioned on the marriage taking
place. If the contract to marry is terminated, the general rule
is the donor is entitled to get the ring back if the engagement is broken.
George prevailed, and Adele had to return the six carat diamond
engagement ring. However, Adele was able to keep the other
rings, as they were "absolute gifts," not conditioned on
marriage.
|
|
|
EXTENSION OF 209A RESTRAINING ORDER ON BEHALF OF UNBORN CHILD
Recently, a Massachusetts district court judge
extended a 209A restraining order on behalf
of an unborn child. In that case, the plaintiff was pregnant at
the time she sought the original abuse protection order, and at the
hearing to continue the order. While the plaintiff requested
that the order be modified to allow the father of the child to
contact her regarding matters related to the pregnancy, the district
court judge denied the request. Recognizing the protective
purpose of G.L. Chapter 209A,
the judge concluded that there was no valid reason to deny protection
simply because the child was not yet born.
The judge's reasoning appears to follow the "best interest of
the child" standard utilized by Probate & Family Court
judges. The judge conceded in his decision that the state's
judicial guidelines on abuse prevention proceedings provide that a
plaintiff wishing to terminate an order is able to do so regardless
of the reason or the presence of children. However, the
guidelines also direct a judge who is aware that a child in the
household may have been harmed, to determine whether a report should
be made to the Department of Children and Families to conduct an
investigation. It is clear from this decision that a 209A abuse prevention order may be extended over
the objection of the mother who sought the order in the first place,
in order to protect the safety of the unborn child.
|
|
HOLIDAY VISITATION REMINDER
Although we are in the middle of the "dog
days" of summer, it is not too early to be thinking about the
holidays and parenting/visitation time. November and December
will soon be upon us, and it is essential to insure that provisions
have been made for important holiday occasions. If a hearing on
temporary orders has not occurred, or is not scheduled for some time,
holidays should be addressed as soon as possible. The courts
prefer that you not wait until the last minute to address these important
times. Save yourself unnecessary worry, and plan ahead, so you
do not have to seek such orders on an emergency basis.
|
|
|
|
COMING IN NEXT MONTH'S ISSUE . . .
If a Parent Receives SSI or SSDI,
How Does That Effect Child Support Payments?
|
If anyone has a topic that would be of general interest, please do not
hesitate to contact the office and let us know what items would be of
general interest to the readers of this newsletter.
|
|
|
Susan C. Ryan, Esq.
Law Office of Susan Castleton Ryan, PC
|
|
This newsletter is designed to keep
you up-to-date with changes in the law. For help with these or
any other legal issues, please call our firm today.
The information in this newsletter is
intended solely for your information .
It does not constitute legal advice, and it should not be relied on
without a discussion of your specific situation with an attorney.
|
|
|
|
|
