Wedding rings and engagement ring- Part of NFP

[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.

[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...

[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]

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,

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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]

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.

[blinkandimgone]

What's your problem? Seriously?

I'll second that.

[Janibel]

OK...You can take your tongue out now

What's your problem? Seriously?

[Janibel]

I understand that there are companies that will take your cremated remains and have them compressed into a diamond. I'd love to have that done with my ex, to give my kids.

I don't feel the need to wait until she passes.

Hahahahahaha!! (cough, hack, cough) that is the second funniest thing that I have ever read in here! Number one was the 'fumigate' the house rant!

Mess, I don't know what you do for a living, but stand-up comedy would suit you!

[OrleansLawyer]

All were bought before marriage.

All of the property should have gone on your NFP statement. You take the separation date value, and subtract the marriage date value. If the item's value was static then most people will leave it off the NFP statement.

Example:
Married Jan 1, 2000 ; ring worth 2k
Separated Jan 1, 2010 ; ring worth ~2k

It is not likely to be worth arguing the difference - particularly since it may have gone down in value (and thus favour you).

As a matter of equity and simplicity, many people decide that an item owned on the marriage date, and still owned at the separation date, is to be excluded (instead of deducted).

There is no marital property if you are not married. Your bank account is your money, your partner's bank account is their money.

This answers many of the issues in this thread.

[ringettteplayer]

oh my god Mess!! too funny thanks for the belly laugh!!!

i'd just like to say i will volunteer to drive us all

*cracks open cold beer* raises glass *cheers

[arabian]

thats fuckin anal