Keep the Ring or Return It?

When a couple becomes engaged, there is so much love and hope. It is just assumed that a marriage will take place, and the couple will embark upon a life together. However, sometimes that is not at all what happens. For a multitude of reasons, engagements are called off, and there are many things which need to be addressed from how to break the news to family and friends; canceling wedding and reception plans; getting back deposit money; and what to do with the engagement ring.

Tradition!

Traditionally, if the man called off the engagement the ring remained with the woman, and if the woman called off the engagement the ring was returned to the man. It was an unspoken rule that 'cheating' and other such inappropriate behavior by either partner constituted them 'calling off the engagement' by virtue of their behavior.

However, these traditional views have been replaced, and couples are battling over the ring to the point of going to court in order to determine legal possession of it. Factors such as fault, cost, and intent (condition) are all being considered as courts across the nation make rulings on this emotionally-charged issue.

The Rules of Engagement

In 1999, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that regardless of who called off the engagement, the ring must be returned to the donor. Critics of this ruling argue that it will encourage a nonchalant attitude regarding the whole proposal and broken engagement process. If the traditional way was enforced, they argue, donors would be less likely to make casual proposals and to break off engagements for minor reasons.

In September of 2007, an appellate decision in another case made by a Tennessee court followed suit with the Pennsylvania ruling, stating that an engagement ring was given conditionally, and therefore if the condition (marriage) was not met, the ring was to be returned to the donor regardless of 'fault' or who called off the engagement.

But, even the courts cannot agree upon what is the right way to handle possession of the ring in the case of a broken engagement. DivorceSource.com cites the following:

"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 "[i]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 two biggest and most contradictory rules in the court decisions are 'majority rule' and 'minority rule' Majority rule considers fault. Minority rule considers conditionality. As evidenced by the above cases, they can result in very different outcomes and be given very different weight in deciding a case.

Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend?

Opinions about giving diamond rings in engagements cover both ends of the spectrum, and is as hotly debated as the topic as to who should receive the ring when an engagement is called off. Some suspect that the giving of diamonds in engagement rings is the primary culprit behind court battles over rings.

The origin of the engagement ring is clouded in mystery, with several theories appearing as most popular. Egyptians, Christians, and Romans are all tied in with the earliest history of the giving and wearing of an engagement ring. The first diamond engagement ring has been traced back to 1477; however, it was not the start of a trend at the time. Several centuries would pass before diamond engagement rings would become the norm.

Opponents of diamond engagement rings cite jeweler ads featuring proposals as a marketing ploy to sell diamonds and encourage materialism. The 'rule' about an engagement ring costing two month's worth of paychecks was in fact started by a DeBeers diamond company advertising campaign in conjunction with them pricing diamonds accordingly.

On the other end of the debate, proponents suggest that with the expense of a diamond engagement ring, a man will be more likely to be serious about and committed to the follow-through of the marriage versus if a more inexpensive ring was given. However, court rulings across the country are nullifying this stance.

The issue of the giving of diamonds and the cost of the ring has become an intricate part of the debate. Many question whether the squabbling over the engagement ring is about the sentimental value or the monetary value of it. This leads to the argument that courts cannot accurately weigh the sentimental value of the ring, and laws are not designed for such considerations.

Diamonds and Divorce

Things are very different when it comes to engagement rings and divorce, though. The laws regarding the award of engagement rings once a marriage occurs and then ends in divorce are almost unanimous. In almost every ruling, the recipient has been awarded the ring, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce, as the engagement ring was given on condition of marriage and the marriage did, indeed, occur.

In the case of divorce, both the majority rule and the minority rule would appear to favor the recipient. In the case of the both, the engagement was not terminated, and therefore the recipient would have full legal rights to keep the ring.

What is Right?

Individuals and courts may have very different opinions as to what is 'right' in regards to possession of an engagement ring when an engagement is broken. The simplest resolution, obviously, would be for the couple to mutually decide without legal action being taken. Some commentators on this issue have suggested that some form of pre-nuptial agreement may now be instituted amongst engaged couples outlining in advance what will happen with the ring should the engagement be terminated.

Regardless of any decision about the ring, this issue highlights one very important point: how very crucial it is to not enter into an engagement lightly. Jewelry and other expenses aside, it can be an emotionally devastating event to experience which no one wants to go through.