In the aftermath of his broken engagement with Lindsay Hubbard, Carl Radke has addressed the controversy surrounding his request for the return of the engagement ring. Following Hubbard’s recent appearance on Watch What Happens Live, where she revealed Radke had “demanded” the ring back, discussions have emerged regarding the legality and etiquette surrounding such matters.
Lindsay Hubbard shed light on the legal framework versus social expectations, stating, “Legally, the ring belongs to him. Now, I did take it off pretty much immediately [and] gave it to my jeweler for safekeeping. And she gave it back to him when he emailed me and demanded it back.”
The public perception of Radke and Hubbard’s breakup has undergone a shift since the news initially surfaced. With many Summer House viewers now viewing Radke as the aggrieved party, one might assume that his decision to reclaim the ring would be met with understanding.
However, during his recent appearance on Watch What Happens Live, Radke faced criticism for his actions. When asked about the ring, he asserted, “It’s my property, and I wrote her an email one-on-one and asked for the ring back.” Despite objections from Trishelle Cannatella, who found the practice disagreeable, Radke reiterated, “It is the law in New York state.”
Explaining his stance further, Radke elaborated, “If I purchase the ring, it’s given to the condition of an engagement. We did not move forward with the wedding, [so] the ring then belonged to me, and that’s the law, so I was just following the law.” Legally speaking, Radke’s position aligns with the interpretation of New York state law regarding engagement rings.
According to lawyer Michael DiFalco, “New York state considers an engagement ring a ‘conditional gift.’ The ownership of the ring is conditioned on whether a marriage occurs. This means that the person who receives the ring has the right of possession only once the marriage has happened. When the two people are married, the ‘conditional gift’ turns into marital property.”
Considering the significant financial investment associated with engagement rings, it is understandable that individuals would seek the return of such assets in the event of a broken engagement. In the absence of New York state law, the outcome of such situations could be markedly different, raising questions about social norms and legal frameworks surrounding engagement ring ownership.