BigLaw associate sues ex-fiancée for return of pricey engagement ring

[DGUtley]

This is interesting. I did not know this but did some brief research and was surprised to learn that in most states the law generally is that: rings given in contemplation of marriage are to be returned if the marriage does not go forward. If it was also given as a birthday or Christmas present, that ring might not be given back.

This lawyer is suing his ex for return of $100,000 ring:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...n=weekly_email

Here's a case out of NY from August of 2018: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-yor...p-51249-u.html

The court starts with application of the traditional principle of New York law holding that an engagement ring is the property of the donor when an engagement is terminated (see DeFina v. Scott, 195 Misc 2d 75, 755 NYS2d 587; see also Gagliardo v. Clemente, 180 AD2d 551). This rule applies only to a ring given as an engagement ring (see, e.g., Torres v. Lopez, 45 Misc 3d 1207[A], 2014 NY Slip Op. 51494[U] at *3 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2014] [holding that a genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which an engagement ring was given will necessitate a trial to determine the facts, if there were reasons other than a contemplated marriage as to why the gift was given, such as part of a birthday or holiday celebration, where the ring may not be subject to return] ).

Florida is a little different and requires justification for the return of the ring:

Here, however, the ring was given in Florida, and the rule there appears to be that, if the donor of an engagement ring breaks off the engagement without legal justification, the donee is entitled to retain the ring (see Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 [Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th Dist.1975]; Maiorana v. Rojas, 3 Misc. 3d 1107(A), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50481(U), 2004 WL 1258073 [Civ. Ct. Kings County 2004] )

In my appellate jurisdiction, though its old, it must be returned:

The general principles of law concerning a donor's right to the return of an engagement ring or its value when the marriage does not occur are contained in a collection of cases from multiple jurisdictions. See Annotation, Rights in Respect of Engagement and Courtship Presents When Marriage Does Not Ensue (1972), 46 A.L.R.3d 578. The court decisions concerning property rights in connection with the gift of an engagement ring in contemplation of marriage have generally fallen into two categories. Some jurisdictions have held that an engagement ring may be recovered by the donor only if the engagement is broken by mutual agreement or by the donee without justification. However, if the donor breaks off the engagement without justification, then he is not entitled to recover the ring from the donee. Annotation, supra. These courts have traditionally gone through a difficult analysis as to which party was “at fault” in order to determine whether a party acted with justification. Id. at 584. Other jurisdictions have held that the donor may recover an engagement ring without a determination of which party ended the engagement, or which party was at fault, absent an agreement to the contrary. Id. *730 Ohio appellate courts have decided this issue both ways. In Wion v. Henderson (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 207, 208, 24 OBR 330, 331, 494 N.E.2d 133, 133-134, the court held that, absent an agreement to the contrary, a party need not return an engagement ring when the donor unjustifiably breaks the engagement. In Wion, the court determined that ending an engagement in order to marry someone else was an unjustified reason. Id. at 207-208, 24 OBR at 330-332, 494 N.E.2d at 133-134. In many cases, however, no real fault exists because one or both of the parties merely changes his mind as to the desirability of the other person as a marriage partner. As a result, this view penalizes the donor for acting to prevent what he believes may be an unhappy marriage. See Lyle v. Durham (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 1, 2-3, 16 OBR 1, 1-4, 473 N.E.2d 1216, 1217-1219.

In Wilson v. Dabo (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 169, 170, 10 OBR 223, 223, 461 N.E.2d 8, 9, the court held that a cause of action existed for the return of property, including property other than an engagement ring, transferred in reliance upon the promise of marriage under a theory of unjust enrichment. The transfer of the property, even if a gift, was based on the mutual understanding that the parties would be married. Id. Therefore, the property should be returned at least if the donor has not unjustifiably ended the engagement if the condition is not fulfilled. Id.

In Lyle, supra, the court determined that because an engagement ring is a symbol or pledge of a future marriage, it signifies that the one who wears it is engaged to marry the man who gave it to her.

Therefore, it is given in contemplation of the marriage and is a unique type of conditional gift. When the condition is not fulfilled, the ring or its value should be returned to the donor, no matter who broke the engagement or caused it to be broken. Id. at 3, 16 OBR at 3, 473 N.E.2d at 1218. As a result, in the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor upon termination of the agreement regardless of fault. When the parties have not imposed an express condition, the law implies a condition because of an engagement **458 ring's symbolic significance. Namely, the ring is a symbol of a pledge to marry. Annotation, supra, at 599-600.

We find the reasoning of the court in Lyle, supra, persuasive. Not only does this rule of law establish a “bright line” for situations where the parties involved are unlikely to have considered the necessity of making an “agreement to the contrary,” but the rule also eliminates the need for a trial court to attempt the often impossible task of determining which, if either, party is at fault.

Attachment 24400

[Lummy]

That is interesting.

[Adelaide]

It kind of makes sense, but I do not really agree with it.

[Captdon]

Well, that's one i never knew.

[Cthulhu]

She doesn't deserve it. And he's an idiot for spending that much on a ring for a girl who isn't his wife.

Sent from my evil cell phone.