-
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.
Get the ring back?
- Thread starter Kenzkaya
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
TheGeekess
Keeper of the Kraken
From https://forum.freeadvice.com/small-claims-courts-24/engagement-ring-438265.html
cyjeff:
....There is an abundance of case law that addresses this issue and, in every case, the ring was seen as a conditional gift....
Divorce Source: WITH THIS RING: POSSESSION OF ENGAGEMENT AND WEDDING RINGS UPON TERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Quote:
A survey of the case law addressing entitlement to an engagement ring following a decision not to marry reveals two major rules. One is the majority rule, wherein fault determines entitlement to a ring. The other is a minority rule, wherein fault is not considered. Rather, the giving of the ring is viewed as bestowing upon the donee a conditional gift. The condition is marriage. When that condition fails, the donor is entitled to a return of the ring. While this rule is often described as a minority position, it appears to be emerging as the trend when the ownership of rings is litigated.
The majority rule was stated by the court in In re Estate of Lowe, 146 Mich. App. 325, 379 N.W.2d 485, 486 (1985), as follows:
[W]here the engagement is broken by the donee, most courts have held that the donor is entitled to the ring. Conversely, where the engagement is unjustifiably broken by the donor, he may not obtain the recovery of the ring. . . . These results can be justified on the finding of fault in the conduct of one of the parties. . . . On the other hand, where the engagement is expressly terminated by the mutual consent of the parties, the general view is that the donor may obtain recovery since "the principle applies that the ring was given and received upon the condition subsequent that it would be returned if the parties did not wed without the fault of either", and "t cannot be said that any so-called cancellation by mutual consent had the effect of abrogating the condition upon which the ring was held". 46 A.L.R.3d 601[.]
(Citations omitted.) See generally Annotation, Rights in Respect of Engagement and Courtship Presents When Marriage Does Not Ensue, 46 A.L.R.3d 578 (1972 & Supp. 1993).
This rule was applied in Wion v. Henderson, 24 Ohio App. 3d 207, 494 N.E.2d 133 (1985). There, the plaintiff/donor broke his engagement with the defendant/donee to marry his present wife. The plaintiff sued for return of the ring. He was denied relief. The court noted that the plaintiff was at fault; the defendant was not. The court, following the position of another Ohio court in Coconis v. Christakis, 70 Ohio Misc. 29, 435 N.E.2d 100 (County Ct. 1981), held that absent an agreement to the contrary, an engagement ring need not be returned to the donor when the engagement is unjustifiably broken by the donor.
The Florida court in Gill v. Shively, 320 So. 2d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975), similarly followed this rule but given different factual circumstances. On April 19, 1974, the appellant/donor gave the appellee/donee a diamond engagement ring worth $3,620. Two weeks later, the appellee said she did not feel she was ready for marriage. The appellant brought a replevin action for return of the ring. His complaint was dismissed. The court of appeal reve rsed. It held that the ring was not an absolute gift but was conditioned on the consummation of the marriage. The condition failed. Thus, appellant had a valid cause of action.
Other courts, in contrast, have held that fault is not relevant to the ownership of engagement rings. The basis behind these opinions has often been the same policies which led to the adoption of no-fault divorce statutes. In Aronow v. Silver, 223 N.J. Super. 344, 538 A.2d 851 (Ch. Div. 1987), the defendant/donee canceled the engagement three times. When it was obvious that the marriage would not take place, the plaintiff/donor sought return of the ring. The court allowed him recovery. It rejected the majority rule, declaring it to be sexist and archaic. The court wrote:
The majority rule, even without its constitutional infirmity, will not withstand elementary scrutiny. Its foundation is fault, and fault, in an engagement setting, cannot be ascertained.
What fact justifies the breaking of an engagement? The absence of a sense of humor? Differing musical tastes? Differing political views? The painfully-learned fact is that marriages are made on earth, not in heaven. They must be approached with intel ligent care and should not happen without a decent assurance of success. When either party lacks that assurance, for whatever reason, the engagement should be broken. No justification is needed. Either party may act. Fault, impossible to fix, does not count.
538 A.2d at 853-54. The plaintiff's gift was conditioned on the marriage taking place. It did not matter why the marriage did not take place; the main point was that the condition was unfulfilled. Thus, the ring should be returned to the plaintiff.
A New York court adopted this rule as well in Friedman v. Geller, 82 Misc. 2d 291, 368 N.Y.S.2d 980 (Civ. Ct. 1975). The plaintif f/donor and defendant/donee were engaged to be married. Their romance dissipated, and the defendant refused to return the ring. She alleged the ring was an unconditional gift, given as an ex pression of love and affection. The plaintiff, in contrast, argued that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage and was recoverable since the marriage did not materialize. The court held for the plaintiff. It commented:
Here, the donee fails to reflect upon the significance of a diamond engagement ring. A ring is given by a donor to his fiancee as a sacred designation of conjugality. It is a pledge of betrothal growing out of love and affection, which is co-incidental, as well as part and parcel, of a culminating matrimonial relationship. Would the plaintiff have made the gift had he not contemplated a consummated marriage in the offing? To hold otherwise, would be stretching credulity to its breaking point. This would permit the donee by the barest of allegations to defeat summary judgment[.]
368 N.Y.S.2d at 982. The court held that a donee must have clear and convincing proof to rebut the presumption that gifts made during the engagement period are given solely in consideration of marriage. The plaintiff in Friedman was entitled to summary judgment for return of the ring.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the minority position in Brown v. Thomas, 127 Wis. 2d 318, 379 N.W.2d 868 (1985). The parties were engaged in September 1983, at which time the plaintiff gave the defendant a ring. In December 1983, the engagement was broken and the plaintiff sued for return of the ring. Each party accused the other of breaking the engagement. The trial court granted the defendant a motion on the verdict. The supreme court reversed. It held that the condition that a marriage will ensue is implied in fact or imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. When the condition fails, the ring must be returned. The court rejected the contention that recovery was barred by the statutory abolition of the action for breach of a contract to marry. Nevertheless, it rejected the plaintiff's contention that he was entitled to interest and damages. See also Lyle v. Durham, 16 Ohio App. 3d 1, 473 N.E.2d 1216 (1984) (where plaintiff/donor brought a conversion action against defendant/donee for the value of an engagement ring and wedding band he purchased for defendant, who had traded the rings in to buy an engagement ring and wedding band with a subsequent fiance, plaintiff entitled to judgment unless there was an agreement between the parties that the rings need not be returned; it was no matter that the plaintiff broke the engagement).
(Continued Next Post)
cyjeff:
....There is an abundance of case law that addresses this issue and, in every case, the ring was seen as a conditional gift....
Divorce Source: WITH THIS RING: POSSESSION OF ENGAGEMENT AND WEDDING RINGS UPON TERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Quote:
A survey of the case law addressing entitlement to an engagement ring following a decision not to marry reveals two major rules. One is the majority rule, wherein fault determines entitlement to a ring. The other is a minority rule, wherein fault is not considered. Rather, the giving of the ring is viewed as bestowing upon the donee a conditional gift. The condition is marriage. When that condition fails, the donor is entitled to a return of the ring. While this rule is often described as a minority position, it appears to be emerging as the trend when the ownership of rings is litigated.
The majority rule was stated by the court in In re Estate of Lowe, 146 Mich. App. 325, 379 N.W.2d 485, 486 (1985), as follows:
[W]here the engagement is broken by the donee, most courts have held that the donor is entitled to the ring. Conversely, where the engagement is unjustifiably broken by the donor, he may not obtain the recovery of the ring. . . . These results can be justified on the finding of fault in the conduct of one of the parties. . . . On the other hand, where the engagement is expressly terminated by the mutual consent of the parties, the general view is that the donor may obtain recovery since "the principle applies that the ring was given and received upon the condition subsequent that it would be returned if the parties did not wed without the fault of either", and "t cannot be said that any so-called cancellation by mutual consent had the effect of abrogating the condition upon which the ring was held". 46 A.L.R.3d 601[.]
(Citations omitted.) See generally Annotation, Rights in Respect of Engagement and Courtship Presents When Marriage Does Not Ensue, 46 A.L.R.3d 578 (1972 & Supp. 1993).
This rule was applied in Wion v. Henderson, 24 Ohio App. 3d 207, 494 N.E.2d 133 (1985). There, the plaintiff/donor broke his engagement with the defendant/donee to marry his present wife. The plaintiff sued for return of the ring. He was denied relief. The court noted that the plaintiff was at fault; the defendant was not. The court, following the position of another Ohio court in Coconis v. Christakis, 70 Ohio Misc. 29, 435 N.E.2d 100 (County Ct. 1981), held that absent an agreement to the contrary, an engagement ring need not be returned to the donor when the engagement is unjustifiably broken by the donor.
The Florida court in Gill v. Shively, 320 So. 2d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975), similarly followed this rule but given different factual circumstances. On April 19, 1974, the appellant/donor gave the appellee/donee a diamond engagement ring worth $3,620. Two weeks later, the appellee said she did not feel she was ready for marriage. The appellant brought a replevin action for return of the ring. His complaint was dismissed. The court of appeal reve rsed. It held that the ring was not an absolute gift but was conditioned on the consummation of the marriage. The condition failed. Thus, appellant had a valid cause of action.
Other courts, in contrast, have held that fault is not relevant to the ownership of engagement rings. The basis behind these opinions has often been the same policies which led to the adoption of no-fault divorce statutes. In Aronow v. Silver, 223 N.J. Super. 344, 538 A.2d 851 (Ch. Div. 1987), the defendant/donee canceled the engagement three times. When it was obvious that the marriage would not take place, the plaintiff/donor sought return of the ring. The court allowed him recovery. It rejected the majority rule, declaring it to be sexist and archaic. The court wrote:
The majority rule, even without its constitutional infirmity, will not withstand elementary scrutiny. Its foundation is fault, and fault, in an engagement setting, cannot be ascertained.
What fact justifies the breaking of an engagement? The absence of a sense of humor? Differing musical tastes? Differing political views? The painfully-learned fact is that marriages are made on earth, not in heaven. They must be approached with intel ligent care and should not happen without a decent assurance of success. When either party lacks that assurance, for whatever reason, the engagement should be broken. No justification is needed. Either party may act. Fault, impossible to fix, does not count.
538 A.2d at 853-54. The plaintiff's gift was conditioned on the marriage taking place. It did not matter why the marriage did not take place; the main point was that the condition was unfulfilled. Thus, the ring should be returned to the plaintiff.
A New York court adopted this rule as well in Friedman v. Geller, 82 Misc. 2d 291, 368 N.Y.S.2d 980 (Civ. Ct. 1975). The plaintif f/donor and defendant/donee were engaged to be married. Their romance dissipated, and the defendant refused to return the ring. She alleged the ring was an unconditional gift, given as an ex pression of love and affection. The plaintiff, in contrast, argued that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage and was recoverable since the marriage did not materialize. The court held for the plaintiff. It commented:
Here, the donee fails to reflect upon the significance of a diamond engagement ring. A ring is given by a donor to his fiancee as a sacred designation of conjugality. It is a pledge of betrothal growing out of love and affection, which is co-incidental, as well as part and parcel, of a culminating matrimonial relationship. Would the plaintiff have made the gift had he not contemplated a consummated marriage in the offing? To hold otherwise, would be stretching credulity to its breaking point. This would permit the donee by the barest of allegations to defeat summary judgment[.]
368 N.Y.S.2d at 982. The court held that a donee must have clear and convincing proof to rebut the presumption that gifts made during the engagement period are given solely in consideration of marriage. The plaintiff in Friedman was entitled to summary judgment for return of the ring.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the minority position in Brown v. Thomas, 127 Wis. 2d 318, 379 N.W.2d 868 (1985). The parties were engaged in September 1983, at which time the plaintiff gave the defendant a ring. In December 1983, the engagement was broken and the plaintiff sued for return of the ring. Each party accused the other of breaking the engagement. The trial court granted the defendant a motion on the verdict. The supreme court reversed. It held that the condition that a marriage will ensue is implied in fact or imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. When the condition fails, the ring must be returned. The court rejected the contention that recovery was barred by the statutory abolition of the action for breach of a contract to marry. Nevertheless, it rejected the plaintiff's contention that he was entitled to interest and damages. See also Lyle v. Durham, 16 Ohio App. 3d 1, 473 N.E.2d 1216 (1984) (where plaintiff/donor brought a conversion action against defendant/donee for the value of an engagement ring and wedding band he purchased for defendant, who had traded the rings in to buy an engagement ring and wedding band with a subsequent fiance, plaintiff entitled to judgment unless there was an agreement between the parties that the rings need not be returned; it was no matter that the plaintiff broke the engagement).
(Continued Next Post)
TheGeekess
Keeper of the Kraken
From https://forum.freeadvice.com/small-claims-courts-24/engagement-ring-438265.html
cyjeff:
The minority rule, that the gift of an engagement ring is a conditional gift and recoverable where the condition fails, seems to be emerging as the majority rule. Recent cases uniformly have been adopting this rule. For example, in Glass v. Wiltz, 551 So. 2d 32 (La. Ct. App. 1989), the plaintiff/donor sought recovery of a 14-carat yellow gold diamond ring, with an appraised value of $29,000, after he broke the engagement. The defendant/donee was ordered to return the ring. She then filed a reconventional suit for $29,000 damages for the loss of the ring plus $25,000 damages for pain and suffering. The court refused her relief. It held that the condition failed, so the plaintiff was entitled to return of the ring. Moreover, the defendant failed to prove damages entitling her to any monetary award.
In Spinnell v. Quigley, 56 Wash. App. 799, 785 P.2d 1149 (1990), the appellant gave the defendant a two-carat diamond ring upon their engagement in October 1982. When the engagement was broken, the appellant took the ring back. The respondent filed an action to recover the ring. The trial court allowed the appellant to keep the ring, but it ordered him to pay the respondent $7,500 for uncompensated services. The appellate court modified the order. It held that appellant was entitled to the ring because he made the gift upon the implied condition that if there was no marriage, the ring would be returned. It also ordered the respondent to repay the appellant $7,500.
The New York appellate court, in Gagliardo v. Clemente, 180 A.D.2d 551, 580 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1992), affirmed a partial summary judgment granted to the plaintiff/donor by the trial court in so much as the plaintiff sought return of a 3.77-carat white diamond ring he gave the defendant in contemplation of marriage. The court held that it was no matter that plaintiff might be at fault for breaking the engagement; the ring was given in contemplation of marriage, and the marriage did not occur. See also Glachman v. Perlen, 159 A.D.2d 533, 552 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1990); McIntire v. Raukhorst, 65 Ohio App. 3d 728, 585 N.E.2d 456 (1989).
These cases of broken engagement must be distinguished from those cases where the engagement was not broken but, rather, did not materialize due to events beyond the parties' control.
And etiquette says:
"Etiquette demands that the woman offers to return the ring though, especially if she broke off the engagement."
ettiquette
"The expert on taste and grace, Miss Manners, told one of her readers that the ring should be given back -- always.
'The laws of etiquette absolutely require you to return an engagement ring when the engagement is broken, for whatever reason, and by however nasty a fiance,' Miss Manners said."
Diamond Ring
"If the engagement should be so unfortunate as to be broken off, the engagement ring and all other gifts of value must be returned."
20. Engagements. Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette
Of course, all this information is available with a simple search of this site.
cyjeff:
The minority rule, that the gift of an engagement ring is a conditional gift and recoverable where the condition fails, seems to be emerging as the majority rule. Recent cases uniformly have been adopting this rule. For example, in Glass v. Wiltz, 551 So. 2d 32 (La. Ct. App. 1989), the plaintiff/donor sought recovery of a 14-carat yellow gold diamond ring, with an appraised value of $29,000, after he broke the engagement. The defendant/donee was ordered to return the ring. She then filed a reconventional suit for $29,000 damages for the loss of the ring plus $25,000 damages for pain and suffering. The court refused her relief. It held that the condition failed, so the plaintiff was entitled to return of the ring. Moreover, the defendant failed to prove damages entitling her to any monetary award.
In Spinnell v. Quigley, 56 Wash. App. 799, 785 P.2d 1149 (1990), the appellant gave the defendant a two-carat diamond ring upon their engagement in October 1982. When the engagement was broken, the appellant took the ring back. The respondent filed an action to recover the ring. The trial court allowed the appellant to keep the ring, but it ordered him to pay the respondent $7,500 for uncompensated services. The appellate court modified the order. It held that appellant was entitled to the ring because he made the gift upon the implied condition that if there was no marriage, the ring would be returned. It also ordered the respondent to repay the appellant $7,500.
The New York appellate court, in Gagliardo v. Clemente, 180 A.D.2d 551, 580 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1992), affirmed a partial summary judgment granted to the plaintiff/donor by the trial court in so much as the plaintiff sought return of a 3.77-carat white diamond ring he gave the defendant in contemplation of marriage. The court held that it was no matter that plaintiff might be at fault for breaking the engagement; the ring was given in contemplation of marriage, and the marriage did not occur. See also Glachman v. Perlen, 159 A.D.2d 533, 552 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1990); McIntire v. Raukhorst, 65 Ohio App. 3d 728, 585 N.E.2d 456 (1989).
These cases of broken engagement must be distinguished from those cases where the engagement was not broken but, rather, did not materialize due to events beyond the parties' control.
And etiquette says:
"Etiquette demands that the woman offers to return the ring though, especially if she broke off the engagement."
ettiquette
"The expert on taste and grace, Miss Manners, told one of her readers that the ring should be given back -- always.
'The laws of etiquette absolutely require you to return an engagement ring when the engagement is broken, for whatever reason, and by however nasty a fiance,' Miss Manners said."
Diamond Ring
"If the engagement should be so unfortunate as to be broken off, the engagement ring and all other gifts of value must be returned."
20. Engagements. Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette
Of course, all this information is available with a simple search of this site.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">