Wedding Bell Blues

The other day as I was out and about, I ran into a buddy of mine who had only recently proposed to his girlfriend of 2 years.

Happy, happy are they and their respective parents.  As part of the proposal, Guy went out and bought Girl a 2 caret diamond ring (a real diamond) which set him back $30,500.  The plan was to be married in December with a March engagement.  So, they had 9 months to get ready.

 

I'm thinking 9 months to get ready?  That's a long time.  Heck, a whole lot of not good things can happen in 9 months.  Annnnnnnnnd, turns out I was right as Guy found out only recently that Girl has been unfaithful multiple times.  

Now, Guy wants out (i.e. break the engagement) AND Guy wants the ring back but Girl is resisting.  I mean, it is a nice ring.  

Question:  Can Guy get the ring back?

Short answer is yes,...well, maybe...unless a specific state rule or fact pattern changes the outcome.

See, engagement rings are typically treated as a “conditional gift.”  A conditional gift is a gift in which the donor’s (i.e. the person who gave the gift) intent to transfer ownership depends on the occurrence of a specified event.  If the condition is not satisfied, the donor retains the right to recover the property.

Here, the condition was marriage actually occurring (not just being engaged).  If the marriage doesn’t happen, the condition fails and ring must be returned.

So under the dominant modern rule:  No wedding = no completed gift and the donor (Guy) gets the ring back.

Pretty straight forward, right?  Eh, sometimes.

And as this is a legal-esque blog, I got to wondering what areas of law are we dealing with here?

 

A.  Gift Law (Property)

When courts say an engagement ring is a conditional gift, they are really answering a property question.  Specifically, courts are asking who has title (ownership), and when does ownership fully transfer?

This is not just semantics.  Title determines who has the right to possess, keep, or recover the item.  In property law, a valid gift normally requires:

1. Donative intent (something is given without expecting anything in return.)
2. Delivery
3. Acceptance

If all three are satisfied, title transfers immediately and completely. A conditional gift, however, changes the giver's donative intent.  

So, instead of saying here is a gift, now it's yours, when a condition is involved, this means is that a person gives a gift because they want to, but the other person (i.e the receiver of the gift) must do what was asked to keep it. 

In the case of an engagement, title is NOT fully transferred at delivery.  Instead, the law treats the transfer like this:

 

Stage 1: Delivery (Engagement)

• Recipient gets possession
• BUT ownership is defeasible

Defeasible means something is valid or allowed now, but it can be taken away or ended if something happens (or does not happen). Think of it as a provisional ownership interest subject to being undone if a/the condition does not occur.

Stage 2: Condition Occurs (Marriage)

In this instance, title becomes absolute and the gift is now irrevocable (he can't take the ring back).

 

Stage 3: Condition Fails (No Marriage)

Because donor (Guy) and donee (Girl) were not married, title is never fully vested in the donee (Girl), and the law treats the donor (Guy) as having retained superior ownership.  The result here is that Guy can reclaim the ring (i.e. his property). 

 

B.  Contract Principles (but limited)

An engagement is not an enforceable contract to marry.  What this means is that even if two people agree to get married, the law will not force them to go through with the marriage or punish them just for backing out.

 

In order for a contract to exist, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration.  In an engagement scenario, courts still analogize that a ring acts as consideration-like inducement for marriage.

 

What "consideration-like inducement for marriage" means is that the ring functions similar to consideration in contract law; it’s something given to encourage (induce) the other person to go through with the marriage but it’s not legally enforceable consideration. 

 

So, while the ring resembles consideration because it’s given in exchange for the expected marriage, since the promise to marry isn’t legally enforceable, courts treat it as a conditional gift instead of a true contract exchange. 

 

C.  Restitution / Unjust Enrichment

If recipient keeps ring after condition fails, they would be unjustly enriched.  In this case where Guy gave Girl a ring on condition of marriage, the only remedy is the return of the ring or its value (i.e. $30,500).

 

D.  Family Law Overlay

Courts try to stay out of people’s personal relationship drama and avoid deciding who behaved badly....unless a law specifically requires them to.

 

So, to that, 

California Civil Code § 1590

governs the return of gifts, such as engagement rings, made in contemplation of marriage. If the recipient refuses to marry or the engagement is broken by mutual consent, the donor may recover the ring or its value.  If the donor breaks the engagement, the recipient often keeps it. 

As this applies to our set of facts:

• Girl cheated, she is “at fault”
• Guy calls off wedding due to infidelity

Guy likely gets ring back

Under Simonian v. Donoian, 96 Cal. App. 2d 259, 215 P.2d 119 (1939), the court found that a donor can recover their property (i.e. the ring) if the marriage does not occur unless donor is at fault.  

Further, in Shaw v. Shaw, 35 Cal. App. 3d 648, 111 Cal. Rptr. 398 (1972), the court held that gifts given in contemplation of marriage are recoverable under §1590 which reinforces the statutory framework rather than relying on pure common law.

However, there are a number of opinions that suggest that Girl can keep the ring.  

For example, in Albinger v. Harris, 48 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2002) the Montana Supreme Court rejected the conditional-gift rule for engagement rings and held that an engagement ring was given without any express or implied condition of marriage, and under Montana gift law, once delivered and accepted, the ring was a completed, irrevocable gift that could not be revoked simply because the engagement ended.

In North Dakota, courts have also treated engagement rings as unconditional gifts.  In Kohler v. Flynn, 493 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1992), the court held that the recipient of an engagement ring can keep the ring even if no marriage occurs.

Finally, Virginia abolished “heart balm” lawsuits under Virginia Code § 8.01-220 and now frequently refers to trial court level cases like Georgalas v. Kilgore, 73 Va. Cir. 34, 2006 Va. Cir. LEXIS 292 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2006) which held that treating the ring as conditional would revive a breach-of-promise-type claim.  Consequently, Virginia courts refuse to order return of an engagement ring. 

I guess the moral to this story is that an engagement ring is basically a “we’re getting married” deposit.  If the wedding never happens, most courts will hand it back to the person who paid for it. 

However, just be aware (and depending on the jurisdiction you're in), the legal system may either ignore who caused the breakup entirely or quietly side-eye the situation and ask who changed the plans first.

So, maybe the better course of action is to really, REALLY be sure your betrothed is THE one.  

Well, that or just make sure the jurisdiction where you're getting engaged (not just where you're getting married) favors the giver of the ring OR maybe hold off buying that $30K ring until after the wedding.

Renewed vows, anyone?!