Ryan Strasser, an associate of the Troutman Sanders law firm, filed suit against his former fiancee for the return of the 4 carat $100,000 engagement ring he gave her in February of 2017.
Strasser filed the suit in a Washington D.C., federal court, according to Marketwatch.com and Law.com. He argues that ownership of the ring by his former fiancee, Sarah Jones Dickens, was conditional upon marriage and that after their “highly contentious breakup,” it should be returned.”
Strasser purchased the ring using his savings, credit cards, and by taking out a personal loan worth $30,000. In order to purchase the ring, he committed to paying $913 every month until the year 2020. He said that he had set aside a total of $40,000 of his savings to pay for the ring and that his former fiancee insisted that she deserved a larger diamond no less than 5 carats.
Strasser was an associate of the Hogan Lovells law firm when he proposed. The proposal was photographed professionally in a public location that was readily verifiable.
The relationship gradually soured over the following year and a half, and in January of 2018- according to the suit- the two experienced “a particularly dramatic weekend.” Immediately following this, the Dickens reportedly called Strasser’s mother and told her that she was unhappy with her relationship with her son.
Strasser declared an end to the relationship despite the fact that he had been paying $4,800 each month for a five-bedroom house while supporting his fiancee who was working on a degree in art history. Strasser stated that believed a deal had been made which would allow Dickens to continue living at that residence until she finished her dissertation on the condition that she return the ring.
However, Dickens later declared that she was not going to honor the agreement, that the deal was off, and that she intended to keep the ring “forever” according to the suit. A prominent Toronto family lawyer, commented that Strasser was in danger of losing his case owing to the fact that the ring was a gift, and in fact, rings given in engagement derive their meaning from their being given as a gift- and as such free from attachment.”
Strasser seeks the return of the ring via replevin. He alleges conversion of what the suit calls the “wrongfully possessed ring.”