K
kndf
Guest
When an engagement is broken off who gets to keep the engagement ring--I live in Texas
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
LegalBeagle
Senior Member
Who broke off the engagement ? and you are which party ?
E
Edward
Guest
Does not give the answer, but an interesting read..
The Return of the Ring by Liza Weiman Hanks
The engagement is broken. Long after the heartbreak has healed, one nagging question often remains: Who gets to keep the ring?
The engagement, started by candlelight, soft words and promises to wed, is over. In addition to the sorrow, the heartbroken must deal with explanations to friends and relations and the return of the deposits left with the caterer, the florist and the dressmaker.
But when all that dust has cleared, one rankling question often remains: Who gets to keep the ring? For the answer -- or for vengeance -- many turn to the legal system. There are more than a hundred cases now on the books in which courts grappled with the mysteries of the human heart and tried to determine who should keep the ring. Some of these battles were hard fought, going all the way to the supreme courts of their states -- the final stopping point for questions of state law, like this one.
State courts around the nation that have considered the ring issue have reached differing conclusions. And such controversies that have made it all the way to court have had a similar, almost Victorian tone: It is the men who give rings; the women who receive them, and the courts that seek a just determination of rights and wrongs. Real life, of course, can be more complex than that and both women and men can give rings, sometimes to each other. The legal principals in these cases apply to all couples facing this question, regardless of who bought and who received the ring.
When Is a Gift a Gift?
Courts generally treat the engagement ring as a gift, from the donor (the person who gave the ring) to the donee (the person who received it). To find a legal gift, a court looks for three things: the donor's intent to give the ring as a gift; the donor's delivery of it to the donee and the donee's acceptance of the item. If the person to whom the ring was given can show all three elements, the ring is considered a gift to him or her.
Gifts With a Twist
But the majority of courts also consider such a gift to be a conditional one. That means that until some future event occurs, the gift isn't final; if that event does not occur, then the donor has the right to get the gift back. In real life, many parents overuse this idea by, for example, giving a teenage daughter the keys to the family car, on the condition that she maintain a certain gradepoint average for a specified period of time. If she doesn't make the grade, the keys must be returned.
Women who want to keep their engagement rings often argue that the condition needed to make the engagement ring a final gift is simply the acceptance of the proposal of marriage, not the completion of the marriage ceremony. That way, if the engagement is broken, the ring remains her property.
But this argument often loses. The majority of courts find that the gift of an engagement ring contains an implied condition of marriage; acceptance of the proposal is not the underlying "deal." Absent some other understanding -- say, that the ring is merely a memento of a great trip to Hawaii -- most courts look at engagement rings as conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage: "Once it is established the ring is an engagement ring, it is a conditional gift." Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 632, 633 (Kan. 1997).
Pointing (Ring) Fingers
When divining who gets to keep the engagement ring, courts do not agree whether or not it should matter who did the breaking up or why. To some judges, it isn't fair that the donor should always get the ring back, especially if the donee stood ready to go ahead with the marriage. The same judges think it would be unfair for the donee to keep the ring if the engagement was broken because of his or her unfaithfulness or other wrongdoing. In such cases, they order that the ring should return to its purchaser.
Other judges, though, think that the whole matter of who broke up with whom isn't any of their business. If the wedding's off, they say, the donor should get the ring back, regardless of who, why, where, or when the engagement ended. After all, they reason, no-fault divorce makes it possible for marriages to end without bitter court fights over whose fault it was; engagements should be treated the same way.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stuck steadfastly to the no-fault reasoning and decreed that the donor should always get the ring back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why. Lindh v. Surman 1999 WL 1073639. Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin have the same rule. Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 636 (Kan. 1997). The alternative rule, and still the majority approach, is that a donor who breaks off the engagement for a reason that has nothing to do with the donee's behavior cannot recover the ring. This is the fault-based rule.
Justices on the Supreme Court of Kansas, which also adopted the no-fault rule in 1997, detailed the difficulties that they imagined would be theirs with a fault-based approach:
hould courts be asked to determine which of the following grounds for breaking an engagement is fault or justified? (1) The parties have nothing in common; (2) one party cannot stand prospective in-laws; (3) a minor child of one of the parties is hostile to and will not accept the other party; (4) an adult child of one of the parties will not accept the other party: (5) the parties' pets do not get along; (6) a party was too hasty in proposing or accepting the proposal; (7) the engagement was a rebound situation which is now regretted; (8) one party has untidy habits that irritate the other; or (9) the parties have religious differences.
Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 637 (Kan. 1997).
In New Jersey, a court rejected a rule that required a determination of fault, declaring it "sexist and archaic." The court looked to the history of ancient Rome, where a woman who broke off an engagement was required to return not only the ring, but also its value as a penalty. And it also cited England, where a man was required to give the woman the ring if he broke the engagement in recognition of the fact that he had just ruined her reputation and her prospects. The court concluded that "the rule of life was the rule of law -- both saw women as inferiors." Aronow v. Silver, 538 A.2d 851 (1987).
The fault rule might be archaic, it might be sexist, but judges who use it think that justice can't be done without a complete understanding of what went wrong. They might have a point. Consider the case of George J. Pavlicic, a 75-year-old man, who had a romance with Sara Jane Mills, aged 26. They became engaged in 1949. He bought her a house, two cars, an engagement ring, and a diamond ring in anticipation of their marriage. George then lent her a significant amount of money, including $5,000 to buy a saloon. Sara Jane then disappeared. The next time she was heard from, she had indeed used the $5,000 to buy a saloon, but it was in another city, and she had married another man, two years younger than she was.
George went to court. He wanted everything that he'd given Sara Jane back. He won. But Sara Jane argued on appeal that a new law, the Heart-Balm Act, made his lawsuit illegal. The Act outlawed all legal actions for "breaches of contract to marry." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with George. The Act, it held, was aimed at "exaggerated and fictional claims of mortification and anguish purportedly attendant upon a breach of promise to marry." It was meant to end a kind of legal blackmail, where people threatened lawsuits for breach of the promise to marry that would tarnish the other person's reputation; lawsuits scary enough to force a settlement, even from innocent people.
But the Act, the court concluded, didn't alter the rule of conditional gifts. "The title to the gifts which Sara Jane received, predicated on the assurances of marriage with George, never left George and could not leave him until the marital knot was tied. It would appear from all the
The Return of the Ring by Liza Weiman Hanks
The engagement is broken. Long after the heartbreak has healed, one nagging question often remains: Who gets to keep the ring?
The engagement, started by candlelight, soft words and promises to wed, is over. In addition to the sorrow, the heartbroken must deal with explanations to friends and relations and the return of the deposits left with the caterer, the florist and the dressmaker.
But when all that dust has cleared, one rankling question often remains: Who gets to keep the ring? For the answer -- or for vengeance -- many turn to the legal system. There are more than a hundred cases now on the books in which courts grappled with the mysteries of the human heart and tried to determine who should keep the ring. Some of these battles were hard fought, going all the way to the supreme courts of their states -- the final stopping point for questions of state law, like this one.
State courts around the nation that have considered the ring issue have reached differing conclusions. And such controversies that have made it all the way to court have had a similar, almost Victorian tone: It is the men who give rings; the women who receive them, and the courts that seek a just determination of rights and wrongs. Real life, of course, can be more complex than that and both women and men can give rings, sometimes to each other. The legal principals in these cases apply to all couples facing this question, regardless of who bought and who received the ring.
When Is a Gift a Gift?
Courts generally treat the engagement ring as a gift, from the donor (the person who gave the ring) to the donee (the person who received it). To find a legal gift, a court looks for three things: the donor's intent to give the ring as a gift; the donor's delivery of it to the donee and the donee's acceptance of the item. If the person to whom the ring was given can show all three elements, the ring is considered a gift to him or her.
Gifts With a Twist
But the majority of courts also consider such a gift to be a conditional one. That means that until some future event occurs, the gift isn't final; if that event does not occur, then the donor has the right to get the gift back. In real life, many parents overuse this idea by, for example, giving a teenage daughter the keys to the family car, on the condition that she maintain a certain gradepoint average for a specified period of time. If she doesn't make the grade, the keys must be returned.
Women who want to keep their engagement rings often argue that the condition needed to make the engagement ring a final gift is simply the acceptance of the proposal of marriage, not the completion of the marriage ceremony. That way, if the engagement is broken, the ring remains her property.
But this argument often loses. The majority of courts find that the gift of an engagement ring contains an implied condition of marriage; acceptance of the proposal is not the underlying "deal." Absent some other understanding -- say, that the ring is merely a memento of a great trip to Hawaii -- most courts look at engagement rings as conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage: "Once it is established the ring is an engagement ring, it is a conditional gift." Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 632, 633 (Kan. 1997).
Pointing (Ring) Fingers
When divining who gets to keep the engagement ring, courts do not agree whether or not it should matter who did the breaking up or why. To some judges, it isn't fair that the donor should always get the ring back, especially if the donee stood ready to go ahead with the marriage. The same judges think it would be unfair for the donee to keep the ring if the engagement was broken because of his or her unfaithfulness or other wrongdoing. In such cases, they order that the ring should return to its purchaser.
Other judges, though, think that the whole matter of who broke up with whom isn't any of their business. If the wedding's off, they say, the donor should get the ring back, regardless of who, why, where, or when the engagement ended. After all, they reason, no-fault divorce makes it possible for marriages to end without bitter court fights over whose fault it was; engagements should be treated the same way.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stuck steadfastly to the no-fault reasoning and decreed that the donor should always get the ring back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why. Lindh v. Surman 1999 WL 1073639. Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin have the same rule. Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 636 (Kan. 1997). The alternative rule, and still the majority approach, is that a donor who breaks off the engagement for a reason that has nothing to do with the donee's behavior cannot recover the ring. This is the fault-based rule.
Justices on the Supreme Court of Kansas, which also adopted the no-fault rule in 1997, detailed the difficulties that they imagined would be theirs with a fault-based approach:
Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 637 (Kan. 1997).
In New Jersey, a court rejected a rule that required a determination of fault, declaring it "sexist and archaic." The court looked to the history of ancient Rome, where a woman who broke off an engagement was required to return not only the ring, but also its value as a penalty. And it also cited England, where a man was required to give the woman the ring if he broke the engagement in recognition of the fact that he had just ruined her reputation and her prospects. The court concluded that "the rule of life was the rule of law -- both saw women as inferiors." Aronow v. Silver, 538 A.2d 851 (1987).
The fault rule might be archaic, it might be sexist, but judges who use it think that justice can't be done without a complete understanding of what went wrong. They might have a point. Consider the case of George J. Pavlicic, a 75-year-old man, who had a romance with Sara Jane Mills, aged 26. They became engaged in 1949. He bought her a house, two cars, an engagement ring, and a diamond ring in anticipation of their marriage. George then lent her a significant amount of money, including $5,000 to buy a saloon. Sara Jane then disappeared. The next time she was heard from, she had indeed used the $5,000 to buy a saloon, but it was in another city, and she had married another man, two years younger than she was.
George went to court. He wanted everything that he'd given Sara Jane back. He won. But Sara Jane argued on appeal that a new law, the Heart-Balm Act, made his lawsuit illegal. The Act outlawed all legal actions for "breaches of contract to marry." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with George. The Act, it held, was aimed at "exaggerated and fictional claims of mortification and anguish purportedly attendant upon a breach of promise to marry." It was meant to end a kind of legal blackmail, where people threatened lawsuits for breach of the promise to marry that would tarnish the other person's reputation; lawsuits scary enough to force a settlement, even from innocent people.
But the Act, the court concluded, didn't alter the rule of conditional gifts. "The title to the gifts which Sara Jane received, predicated on the assurances of marriage with George, never left George and could not leave him until the marital knot was tied. It would appear from all the
R
reg
Guest
[No message]
M
Mugs23
Guest
From an etiquette only point - if the woman breaks the engagement, she should give the ring back. If he breaks it, she keeps it (and hock it) Hee hee 
K
kndf
Guest
He broke off the engagement and when he gave me the ring he said that even if the relationship ended the ring would me mine.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LegalBeagle:
Who broke off the engagement ? and you are which party ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LegalBeagle:
Who broke off the engagement ? and you are which party ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LegalBeagle
Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mugs23:
From an etiquette only point - if the woman breaks the engagement, she should give the ring back. If he breaks it, she keeps it (and hock it) Hee hee<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whilst I agree, it is no longer that simple. We have breach of promise to marry, heart-balm act.. then there is the whole concept of the gift.. some people believe the act of the gift is complete when there is agreement to marry.. others, when you actually marry.
Breach of promise and heart-balm are getting rare though and some states make it illegal to even threaten to sue for breach of promise to marry.
There is no simple answer to this question.. only that if the man wants it back, and is prepared to go to trial and to appeal any decision against him, he may get the ring back.
[This message has been edited by LegalBeagle (edited August 30, 2000).]
From an etiquette only point - if the woman breaks the engagement, she should give the ring back. If he breaks it, she keeps it (and hock it) Hee hee
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whilst I agree, it is no longer that simple. We have breach of promise to marry, heart-balm act.. then there is the whole concept of the gift.. some people believe the act of the gift is complete when there is agreement to marry.. others, when you actually marry.
Breach of promise and heart-balm are getting rare though and some states make it illegal to even threaten to sue for breach of promise to marry.
There is no simple answer to this question.. only that if the man wants it back, and is prepared to go to trial and to appeal any decision against him, he may get the ring back.
[This message has been edited by LegalBeagle (edited August 30, 2000).]
LegalBeagle
Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kndf:
He broke off the engagement and when he gave me the ring he said that even if the relationship ended the ring would me mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did anyone else hear that statement ??
Either way.. keep it safe until you know what legal action he is prepared to take..
------------------
Psst.. I am not an attorney, and even if I was, I would not tell you. Which technically could mean I am an attorney, but I would not tell you either way. What I am giving you is not legal advice in anyway. For proper legal advice, retain a person who openly admits they are an attorney.
He broke off the engagement and when he gave me the ring he said that even if the relationship ended the ring would me mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did anyone else hear that statement ??
Either way.. keep it safe until you know what legal action he is prepared to take..
------------------
Psst.. I am not an attorney, and even if I was, I would not tell you. Which technically could mean I am an attorney, but I would not tell you either way. What I am giving you is not legal advice in anyway. For proper legal advice, retain a person who openly admits they are an attorney.
A
ace-red
Guest
Why on earth would you WANT to keep it? The relationship is over. You'll burn his clothes and tear up the pictures of the two of you. I gave mine back, and I am happier than a pig in sh*t and he still has to pay for it. He'll never (!) get the money that he is PAYING for it. I know that it's been 3 years and he's not done yet.------------------
U
usdeeper
Guest
For some bedtime reading...
http://www.law2.byu.edu/Wardle/FundPrinsFamL/7AK&FAIL.htm
http://www.law2.byu.edu/Wardle/FundPrinsFamL/7AK&FAIL.htm
N
newmom
Guest
I agree with the "whoever broke it off, the other keeps the ring", but I gave mine back (one when I broke it off and one when my fiance broke it off). I decided that if I had kept them, I would have been able to make some nice jewelry out of the 12 diamonds in those rings!!!!!!
On to you - I would say if he asks for it back, and make a big huge issue out of it, your best bet is to give it back. Save yourself the time and money of a court battle over something your not going to wear anyway.
On to you - I would say if he asks for it back, and make a big huge issue out of it, your best bet is to give it back. Save yourself the time and money of a court battle over something your not going to wear anyway.
T
Tigres
Guest
*snort* With my ex, I paid for the thing, so he wouldn't have gotten it back regardless! Come to think of it, when he lifted it and sold our rings to make his Jeep payment, I bought myself a new one too!
Tig
------------------
I am not a lawyer. Any information relayed is merely my own experience or research.
WARNING: I HAVE AN ATTITUDE AND I KNOW HOW TO USE IT.
"PRINCESS, HAVING HAD SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE WITH PRINCES,SEEKS FROG."
Tig
------------------
I am not a lawyer. Any information relayed is merely my own experience or research.
WARNING: I HAVE AN ATTITUDE AND I KNOW HOW TO USE IT.
"PRINCESS, HAVING HAD SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE WITH PRINCES,SEEKS FROG."
F
FogHorn
Guest
Regardless of the law, it is really a moral decision. If the ring is a symbol of love and committment, and that is gone, then the ring has no value, so why keep it (and the ring then becomes a symbol of that BAD relationship).
On the other hand, if you need the money --- then the law states basically that if it was given as a gift, it's yours to keep (especially if given on a Holiday or Birthday). It it was given as a promisary to marriage, then it the wedding is off, the ring can legally go back to the ring-giver.
At least that's what I believe the law states for TX (my disclaimer!)
On the other hand, if you need the money --- then the law states basically that if it was given as a gift, it's yours to keep (especially if given on a Holiday or Birthday). It it was given as a promisary to marriage, then it the wedding is off, the ring can legally go back to the ring-giver.
At least that's what I believe the law states for TX (my disclaimer!)
N
newmom
Guest
So my one ring could have been considered a gift since it was given to me on Valentines Day?? Damn, I knew I should have kept it!!! Anyway, I gave it back because he went through a lot to get it, had to buy two rings and put them together to make the one and he paid almost 2000 for it (I only had it for a few months) so I know he had a lot more to pay still. The funny thing is, he gave it to his mom as a "promisary note" to repay her for a plane ticket. He paid her back and didn't get the ring back because she had sold it to one of his ex girlfriends for $300!!! HA HA. Ironically, this guy and I are still very good friends and we see each other every day (more than we did when we were together since he was in Hawaii in the military).
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">