Wedding rings and engagement ring- Part of NFP

[Janibel]

OK...You can take your tongue out now

What's your problem? Seriously?

[blinkandimgone]

What's your problem? Seriously?

I'll second that.

[Links17]

Imagine this scenario Ex gets a bunch of jewelry as gifts before you sign the marriage agreement but after you cohabit.

During the marriage she sells and spends from the proceeds.

At the end of the marriage she claims she entered the marriage with the jewelry and you have to reimburse it.

[OrleansLawyer]

Imagine this scenario

Or she comes into the marriage with $20,000.00 cash that she saved through years of prudent fiscal management, which was spent on your family vacations.

Gifts do not have strings attached. If you don't want someone to own something, don't give it to them.

[Links17]

Edit: Spends from the proceeds on her own gambling and vacations by herself! The gifts are not from the other spouse they are from other people...

[blinkandimgone]

And it all still comes back to whether it's 'worth' fighting over - if its something worth a few hundred, a thousand or many many thousands. If it makes a noticable difference in the NFP, then it should be on there, if not, then why bother?

[Janibel]

And it all still comes back to whether it's 'worth' fighting over - if its something worth a few hundred, a thousand or many many thousands. If it makes a noticable difference in the NFP, then it should be on there, if not, then why bother?

Often times it has nothing to do with the value of the object itself. It can be a stubborn need for control. One of my lady friends has a sister who took her to court over an inherited dining room set (estimated worth approx. $500). They argued over this for 3 years, both had legal fees.

Furniture ended up going to Salvation Army, the two sisters are no longer on speaking terms ..... petty and sad.

[Links17]

And it all still comes back to whether it's 'worth' fighting over - if its something worth a few hundred, a thousand or many many thousands. If it makes a noticable difference in the NFP, then it should be on there, if not, then why bother?

You are missing the point, in that a person can walk into the marriage with personal property spending it only on themselves personally and then at the end of the marriage you have to replace it for them,

[OrleansLawyer]

in that a person can walk into the marriage with personal property spending it only on themselves personally and then at the end of the marriage you have to replace it for them

If you don't like what they are doing, separate from them.

You are choosing to allow a state of affairs to continue by not separating. If your partner spends $10k from their pre-marital assets every year on purchasing art for their darts club, and you do not disapprove*, then that is how you chose to have your marital funds spent.

* note - disapprove means separating.

A marriage is a joint effort. If you were in a business, what would you do if your business partner persisted in frittering away capital? Your options are:
A - Dissolve the partnership so that you are not burdened by them; or
B - Stick it out.

If you choose B, then presumably there are some rational reasons for doing so. Perhaps they bring in substantially more money, or they provide services (emotionally support, laundry, tolerate your family, etc) which compensate you for the loss.

When you have the power to mitigate negative actions (such as a business partner being financially imprudent), and elect not to do so, you are rightfully complicit in the loss.

[Links17]

If you don't like what they are doing, separate from them.

You are choosing to allow a state of affairs to continue by not separating. If your partner spends $10k from their pre-marital assets every year on purchasing art for their darts club, and you do not disapprove*, then that is how you chose to have your marital funds spent.

* note - disapprove means separating.

A marriage is a joint effort. If you were in a business, what would you do if your business partner persisted in frittering away capital? Your options are:
A - Dissolve the partnership so that you are not burdened by them; or
B - Stick it out.

If you choose B, then presumably there are some rational reasons for doing so. Perhaps they bring in substantially more money, or they provide services (emotionally support, laundry, tolerate your family, etc) which compensate you for the loss.

When you have the power to mitigate negative actions (such as a business partner being financially imprudent), and elect not to do so, you are rightfully complicit in the loss.

You are right and that is why I got separated and you see a lot of guys in long-term marriages saying they didn't approve of their wives staying home all those years and the judge says well "bad luck" - its a harsh measure and its a sort of "All or nothing" mentality.

B - Stick it out.

If you choose B, then presumably there are some rational reasons for doing so. Perhaps they bring in substantially more money, or they provide services (emotionally support, laundry, tolerate your family, etc) which compensate you for the loss.

Sometimes its just for the sake of the kids...

[blinkandimgone]

You are missing the point, in that a person can walk into the marriage with personal property spending it only on themselves personally and then at the end of the marriage you have to replace it for them,

A person can do a lot of things, however the OP's question was on whether the rings should appear on the NFP. The obvious answer is if the value of such items is substantial, they should be on there, if it's a small amount then it's acceptable to ignore it. No sense fighting over insignificant things.