A $20,000 diamond ring is behind a finder suing the owner in Missouri months ago. Ironically, Bonnie Land filed a $65,000 civil lawsuit against Melisa Boucek, the rings owner, who accused her of theft. The ring finder sued the owner for numerous damages and said she forgot to return the ring. However, authorities are not convinced.
According to a report on Jan. 6 by the SFGate, Land (pictured here) of St. Charles, visited the Tan Company and made a pricey discovery.
Reportedly, while undressing, she observed a ring hanging on a hook. She inspected it, but wrapped it in tissue, tucked it in a jacket, and intended to return it later. However, the moment slipped her mind, this according to Land.
Later that day, Boucek (pictured here), also from St. Louis, realized she lost her precious engagement ring and called the tanning salon. However, no one had turned anything in to "lost and found."
The misplaced ring, described as a two-carat yellow-gold ring with 27 other diamonds surrounding it, was reported lost to the police. But why did the ring finder sue the owner?
Here's where things get strange: Land realized nearly one month later, during a trip to Minnesota, that she still had the ring. Apparently, she discovered it sill wrapped int the jacket pocket she secured it in at the tanning salon weeks earlier.
Embarrassed by the whole thing, she asked someone else to call the salon and inquire about the ring. Meanwhile, a $3,000 reward was posted at the salon.
However, the ring finder agreed to meet the owner the next day at a local jewelry store, where the $20,000 ring was appraised. Lo and behold, the cops were there waiting for the woman and arrested her on allegations of theft.
"I felt so guilty about having it that I just rolled it up in some tissue and put it in a back pocket of my purse. I didn’t know how to take it back," Land said about the two-carat diamond ring.
"I'm not a thief; the worst thing I think I've ever done is speeding. But this called my whole character into question," Land added.
However, prosecutors didn't understand why someone "forgot" to turn in something as expensive as the ring; things like that just don't slip someone's mind.
Luckily for the woman, the judge gave her a break and deferred the charges because she does not have a criminal record.
Meanwhile the ring finder sued the owner for breach of contract and the inability to get an apartment because she had a criminal arrest. However, that was cleared up by her attorney. Obviously, after Land's arrest, Boucek thought she did't have to ante up.
Now a court must decide if there was a breach; because the ring was actually found, not lost.
Comments