婚礼取消了！订婚戒指归谁所有？

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。”