MA court sets new precedent on who keeps an engagement ring

[Calliecake]

@kenny, I guess I wasn’t clear. You and I are in complete agreement that the engagement was over when she didn’t support him during his cancer diagnosis.

 

[marymm]

perhaps he found purpose in pursuing what he believed the fair outcome; IMO the woman seems the spiteful one, a real taker

 

[Lookinagain]

There is a faction that wants to end no-fault divorce, and something like this could be used as part of the argument toward that, but I agree that in this case it was likely just spite.

I've never heard of any faction trying to end no fault so that's interesting. The fact that most jurisdictions allow no fault divorce was one of the reasons that the court found that they should overturn the existing MA law which relied on fault. The SJC said fault was too difficult to adjudicate and therefore fault shouldn't be part of the equation. So I think actually, this case cannot be used, at least in MA, toward an argument to end no-fault.
If anyone wants to read the opinion I've attached a copy

 

[kenny]

@kenny, I guess I wasn’t clear. You and I are in complete agreement that the engagement was over when she didn’t support him during his cancer diagnosis.

No worries.
We're good.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Overturning no fault divorce is another attempt to turn back the clock on women’s rights. It will decrease access to divorce and keep more women in bad marriages.

 

[Calliecake]

No worries.
We're good.

Thank you for this Kenny. It’s been a rough week.