双语：婚礼取消订婚戒指归谁

　　While breaking off an engagement may help a couple dodge a messy divorce, it doesn"t always keep them out of the courtroom.

　　虽然解除婚约可能会帮助两个人避开离婚时的纠葛，但并不意味着他们不会法庭上见。

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

　　一般的订婚戒指都要花费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.

　　确定谁在订婚取消后保有戒指是一个极具争议的问题，几乎每个州都有法律来规定它的所属权。

　　Some bitter lovers even take the case to court.

　　一些满腹怨怼的恋人甚至为此诉诸法庭。

　　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岁，在了解到前未婚夫Christopher Reinhold 上诉要求她归还价值1.75万美元的订婚戒指时，认为自己不是婚约取消的过错方。

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

　　在恋爱了接近2年的时间后，Reinhold于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.

　　但是后来，这对情侣开始经常因为钱而争吵，并在4个月后他们分开了，DiPierro 如是说。她在纽约州史德顿岛做一名医生助理。

　　The followingspring, he filed a lawsuit.

　　第二年春天的时候，他提起了诉讼。

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

　　Reinhold和他的律师没有回应记者的置评请求。

　　Poll: Who do you think should keep the ring?

　　投票：你认为谁应该保有这枚戒指呢？

　　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声称她不愿意还回戒指，是因为男方没有偿还他应付的价值4万美元的生活开销。

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

　　他们的约定：她支付房租、食物、车贷和其他账单，而Reinhold则攒钱买戒指。

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

　　"我帮助了他存钱，所以我觉得有必要保留戒指作为抵偿，”她说。

　　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，但很多人认为戒指在情侣说“我愿意”之前都属于“有条件赠与”，--意思就是不管谁先临阵退缩，戒指都必须归还给购买的人，Alton Abramowitz是这样说的，他是总部位于纽约的美国婚姻律师协会的律师兼会长。

　　But it's not always that simple。

　　但事情往往没有那么简单。

　　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.

　　一位纽约法官在2006年裁定一名妇女可以保有她的3.4克拉钻石订婚戒指，因为她的前未婚夫在求婚时没有和其前妻离婚。

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

　　同时，蒙大拿州高级法院彻底推翻有条件赠与的论据，规定戒指属于受赠人的合法财产。

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

　　在某些州，戒指归谁所有要看是谁取消了婚礼。

　　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，使问题更加复杂化的是，有些州将在节日赠送的婚戒与非节日赠送的婚介区别对待。

　　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，由于戒指是在生日时收到的，所以她辩称戒指应该归她所有。

　　Related: How to ask a friend to pay you back

　　相关话题：如何让朋友还钱

　　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.

　　纽约州的法律偏向于她那边， George Muscato这样说。George是纽约州洛克波特市的一名律师，他曾是一起订婚戒指相关的诉讼案中一名女性客户的代表律师。但他不是DiPierro的代理律师。

　　"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.

　　“如果你在诸如圣诞节、情人节或她的生日等节日里送给她戒指，那么你就是将其作为非有条件性的礼物送给她的。”他说。

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

　　但是介于法律诉讼已经拖了一年多的时间，DiPierro最终同意与Reinhold进行财务和解。

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

　　DiPierro说，虽然她很高兴在法庭上时自己是有利的一方，但它也极大地改变了自己对金钱和恋爱关系的看法。

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

　　“我想，自己在有些方面太过天真了，”她说，“在未来的每段关系中，处理金钱都会变得很复杂。”