Friday, December 22, 2017

Walter Block on the Koch Heir Who is Suing His Ex-Fiancee to Get a Huge Engagement Ring Back



Wyatt Koch — the son of billionaire Bill Koch — is suing his ex-fiancĂ©e to get back an 8.24-carat ring after she broke off their engagement, according to court documents, reports The New York Post.

Wyatt’s lawyers claim that he purchased the  Oscar Heyman cushion-cut diamond with two tapered baguette diamonds for $180,000 in March for Ivie Gabrielle Slocumb.

But come May — after she allegedly “broke off” the engagement — Slocumb kept the rock. Wyatt’s lawyers say the ring’s now worth $250,000, and Wyatt also wants $15,000 in damages.

According to court documents filed in Florida circuit court, Wyatt has “demanded the return of the ring . . . on multiple occasions” and says that the would-be bride “received the ring as a conditional gift. She refuses to return it despite proper demand and the condition not being fulfilled.”

I asked libertarian scholar Dr. Walter Block for his take on the situation. He emails:
I support Wyatt Koch on this. He gave his fiancee that ring conditionally. What was the condition? That she would marry him. But she later delined to do so. Therefore, I think she ought to return the ring to him.
    -RW

11 comments:

  1. Judge Judy agrees with Walter Block. She has argued that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage and if the e gagement is off, then the ex-fiancee must return the ring.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe she had a condition that he had to meet wedding weight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! (But I will only fully engage in this humor on the condition he stuffs his face and it's not some medical condition, otherwise this will be broken off)

      Delete
  3. If he wanted it back he should have asked for a deposit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even if he doesn't get the ring back he got out relatively inexpensively under today's conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In tax law a gift (vs. payment for services or goods, which creates taxable income for the payee) is made from love, affection, or "like impulses," which an engagement ring generally is. The exception is when a couple is particularly mercenary in their arrangement, eg. a gorgeous golddigger clearly exchanging sex for a wealthy guyss money via matrimony.

    A "completed" gift, however, depends on whether the giver retains any ability to rescind or even direct who/what/when/where/why/how the gift is used. Any indicia of control, however slight, can "defeat" the gift for tax purposes. This is important for charitable giving and bequests: in the first case the giver can't take a charitable deduction for income tax purposes, in the latter the property remains in his/her estate for gift and estate tax purposes.

    Was this a gift, forever and ever without condition, at the time it was made? Depends on the state of mind of the parties. I lean toward Walter's view of conditionality. But what about a couple just shacking up, where one gives the other an expensive ring memorializing that love-- and then they break up not long after? Why should the condition be that a wedding event takes place? After all, she could marry him and the disappear, filing for divorce the next day. Would she have met the condition in that case, and be allowed to keep the ring? How about divorce one month later? One year?

    If she's dating billionaires, or their progeny, the 180K may be small change. But you never know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I always like to look for reasons to blame the State. Or at least imagine what things would be without the State.
    I imagine, if the State was not a 3rd party interest in everything in our lives, including marriage and relationships, so many of the things we see wouldn’t be. Maybe some of the things Jeff cleared up about the matter would never be thought of.
    I realize marriage has become a contractual issue, but it’s too bad it’s just not considered a Union of 2 anymore.
    An interesting thought, is $180,000 small change to a Billionaire? Is the attention he will get, including ridicule, as we even see here, worth $180,000?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. marriage should actually properly be considered a union of three, not two, both religiously (a covenant between God and the spouses) and unfortunately the state already considers it a contract between three, not two, as countless court cases have affirmed (man, woman and state.) I put no credence in state marital contracts and Catholic popes actually wrote encyclicals in the 1800s warning against the meddling of the state into marriage. Unfortunately that advice was not needed.

      Delete
    2. $180,000 is to a person with a billion dollars as $180 is to a person with a million dollars. Small change? If I had million dollars and no debt, $180 would be small change.

      Delete
  7. my last line should have read "unfortunately that advice was not "HEEDED."

    (hate when phone changes words by itself.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Suing the ex-fiance for return of the ring is enlisting armed thugs (the court and the cops) to recover something he gave away. Just let it go.

    ReplyDelete