We've seen this before.  Man gives woman diamond engagement ring.  Man and woman fight.  Man calls off engagement. Man asks for engagement ring back. 
In these cases, which have been more and more frequent about the Superior Court system in the past few years, who gets to keep the engagement ring? The judge has again ruled in favor of the man.

The judge is Judge John Kavanewsky and the court is the Superior Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  The man is Charles Miller of Bethel, who originally got an engagement ring for his fiancé Nicolette Chiaia that cost $5,000 at Costco.  Chiaia didn't like the ring and he exchanged it for a more expensive one worth $12,000 at a local jewelry store.

You can't blame a man for trying. But the diamond ring (and other financial factors) caused tension between the duo and Miller soon moved out of his fiance's home. When he asked for his engagement ring back, Chiaia wouldn't give it to him causing him to bring the dispute to court.  Chiaia argued that the ring was a Christmas gift, but Miller argued the facts—the engagement ring was given to his fiancé because he wanted to marry her.  In the end, Miller won the case.  Chiaia still got to keep the Tupperware, twin-sized mattresses, day bed, and rocking chair.

Miller will likely sell the ring to help pay for his financial difficulties.
The question of the day is what happens to an engagement ring when an engagement ends? This question has been asked time and time again and numerous cases have gone to court, typically ruling in favor of the person who bought the engagement ring, which is usually the man. 

Perhaps Judge Kavanewsky explains it best, "The plaintiff gave the ring to the defendant to commemorate their engagement and in contemplation of marriage."

Related Articles: