Who gets the ring when you divorce?

More reasons for a prenup.

Rings, necklaces and watches aren’t among the top priorities that clients ask me to deal with during the stressful period of break-up and divorce. However, the issue of who keeps the jewellery after a split is one that has proved troublesome for many UHNW divorcees, with emotional consequences that are often significantly more far-reaching than first imagined.

The issue is long contested and its legal origins in the UK date back to the 1870s, and the Married Women’s Property Act. This law presumed that any gifts of jewellery to a wife from a husband was "for the decoration of her person" and not hers to own.

However, after this act was abolished it was considered that a gift would remain the property of the recipient. This could only be contested if there was sufficient evidence that would prove an intention from the recipient to return the gift after an agreed period of time or change of circumstance.

Today, that notion stands true and was reinforced by law in 1970. This indicated that an engagement ring is presumed entirely as a gift from one person to another, unless there was clear intention that the ring would be returned at any point, for example if the ring was an heirloom. It makes you wonder what might happen to the Duchess of Cambridge’s engagement ring were she and Prince William ever to split.

What is an heirloom?

After making this point to clients, many ask the question of "How do I prove it’s an heirloom?" It’s a contentious issue, because the definition of "heirloom’" isn’t necessarily black and white. Further questions include, ‘Is a gift only considered an heirloom after a certain number of years or owners?’ and "Does an heirloom have to be old?"

In the circumstances of a split, steps should always be taken to safeguard your interests by obtaining proof that what you have been given by a family member is indeed an heirloom and can be traced by history of ownership.

This can be done by being the recipient of a note from the relative who gave you the heirloom, stating how it came to be passed onto them before it came to you.

What you do with your wedding band after divorce is entirely up to each individual. A growing trend, originating from the US, is to remould the ring and repurpose the band as a "divorce ring". Others request it to be melted down for use as another piece.

Like all divorce law, the division of assets is dependent on facts and leaves little room for negotiation. Therefore, always bear in mind the details of gifts given and received during your marriage and ensure your separation plans are adapted accordingly

 A pre-nuptial agreement, particularly in relation to family heirlooms that may have significant sentimental value, can take the sting out of asset allocation on divorce and help avoid any nasty surprises further down the line.

Amanda McAlister is Head of Family Law at Slater & Gordon

This story first appeared in Spears magazine

This is a story from the team at Spears magazine.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.