婚禮取消了！訂婚戒指歸誰所有？

While breaking off an engagement may help a couple dodge a messy divorce, it doesn't always keep them out of the courtroom.

雖然解除婚約可能會幫助兩個人避開離婚時的糾葛，但並不意味着他們不會法庭上見。

More than $5,000 is spent on the average engagement ring.

一般的訂婚戒指都要花費5000美元以上。

And deciding who gets to keep the ring when the big day gets called off is such a hotly-contested issue that most states have laws governing its ownership.

確定誰在訂婚取消後保有戒指是一個極具爭議的問題，幾乎每個州都有法律來規定它的所屬權。

Some bitter lovers even take the case to court.

一些滿腹怨懟的戀人甚至爲此訴諸法庭。

Colette DiPierro, 31, thought her broken engagement was behind her when she learned that her ex-fiancé Christopher Reinhold was suing, demanding the return of her $17,500 diamond engagement ring.

Colette DiPierro， 31歲，在瞭解到前未婚夫Christopher Reinhold 上訴要求她歸還價值1.75萬美元的訂婚戒指時，認爲自己不是婚約取消的過錯方。

They had dated for almost two years when Reinhold proposed in May 2009.

在戀愛了接近2年的時間後，Reinhold於2009年5月向她求婚。

But the couple began to fight, often about money, and they split four months later, said DiPierro, a physician assistant in Staten Island, N.Y.

但是後來，這對情侶開始經常因爲錢而爭吵，並在4個月後他們分開了，DiPierro 如是說。她在紐約州史德頓島做一名醫生助理。

The followingspring, he filed a lawsuit.

第二年春天的時候，他提起了訴訟。

Reinhold and his attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

Reinhold和他的律師沒有迴應記者的置評請求。

Poll: Who do you think should keep the ring?

投票：你認爲誰應該保有這枚戒指呢？

According to DiPierro, she held onto the ring because he hadn't repaid her for his share of $40,000 worth of living expenses.

DiPierro聲稱她不願意還回戒指，是因爲男方沒有償還他應付的價值4萬美元的生活開銷。

Their deal: she had paid for rent, food, car payments and other bills while Reinhold saved for the ring.

他們的約定：她支付房租、食物、車貸和其他賬單，而Reinhold則攢錢買戒指。

"I helped him save so I felt that I was holding onto the ring for collateral," she said.

"我幫助了他存錢，所以我覺得有必要保留戒指作爲抵償，”她說。

Laws vary by state, but many consider the ring a "conditional gift" until the couple says "I do," -- meaning that regardless of who gets cold feet, the ring must be returned to the person who bought it, said Alton Abramowitz, a New York-based attorney and president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

不同州的法律有所不同，但很多人認爲戒指在情侶說“我願意”之前都屬於“有條件贈與”，--意思就是不管誰先臨陣退縮，戒指都必須歸還給購買的人，Alton Abramowitz是這樣說的，他是總部位於紐約的美國婚姻律師協會的律師兼會長。

But it's not always that simple。

但事情往往沒有那麼簡單。

A New York judge ruled in 2006 that a woman could keep her 3.4-carat diamond engagement ring because her ex had not yet been divorced from his previous wife when he proposed.

一位紐約法官在2006年裁定一名婦女可以保有她的3.4克拉鑽石訂婚戒指，因爲她的前未婚夫在求婚時沒有和其前妻離婚。

The Montana Supreme Court, meanwhile, has shot down the conditional gift theory entirely, ruling that the ring is the rightful property of its recipient.

同時，蒙大拿州高級法院徹底推翻有條件贈與的論據，規定戒指屬於受贈人的合法財產。

In certain states, determining who gets the ring rests on who called off the wedding.

在某些州，戒指歸誰所有要看是誰取消了婚禮。

And, to complicate matters further, some states treat an engagement ring given on a holiday differently than one given on a non-holiday.

而且，使問題更加複雜化的是，有些州將在節日贈送的婚戒與非節日贈送的婚介區別對待。

In DiPierro's case, because the ring was given to her on her birthday, she argued that it should be hers to keep.

在DiPierro的案件中，由於戒指是在生日時收到的，所以她辯稱戒指應該歸她所有。

Related: How to ask a friend to pay you back

相關話題：如何讓朋友還錢

New York State law was on her side, said George Muscato, a Lockport, N.Y.-based attorney who recently represented a female client in an engagement ring-related suit. He did not represent DiPierro.

紐約州的法律偏向於她那邊， George Muscato這樣說。George是紐約州洛克波特市的一名律師，他曾是一起訂婚戒指相關的訴訟案中一名女性客戶的代表律師。但他不是DiPierro的代理律師。

"If you give her that ring on a holiday like Christmas or Valentine's Day or her birthday, then you are making a gift to her as a present [that is] unconditional," he said.

“如果你在諸如聖誕節、情人節或她的生日等節日裏送給她戒指，那麼你就是將其作爲非有條件性的禮物送給她的。”他說。

But as legal proceedings dragged on for more than a year, DiPierro said she ultimately agreed to a financial settlement with Reinhold.

但是介於法律訴訟已經拖了一年多的時間，DiPierro最終同意與Reinhold進行財務和解。

While she's glad her time in court is behind her, DiPierro said it drastically changed her perspective on money and romantic relationships.

DiPierro說，雖然她很高興在法庭上時自己是有利的一方，但它也極大地改變了自己對金錢和戀愛關係的看法。

"I guess, in some cases, I was naive," she said. "Money became very complicated in every future relationship."

“我想，自己在有些方面太過天真了，”她說，“在未來的每段關係中，處理金錢都會變得很複雜。”