When the Heat of Engagement Cools, Who Gets to Keep the Ring?

It is a starry night, warm with a light breeze. Somewhere, perhaps in his imagination, aided by several glasses of Champaign, an orchestra is playing their song. "Will you marry me?", he asks. The music swells into a crescendo as she, breathlessly, says, "Oh, yes". He reaches into his pocket and takes out a ring, which both glows and sparkles, and puts it on her finger. The music soars and it is obvious that this is true, everlasting, eternal love. (Sigh.)

Three or four months later, one or both of them decide that, in the daylight without Champaign, the music has disappeared and that marriage is probably a bad idea.

He asks for the return of the engagement ring, on which he will be making payments for another three years. She does not agree.

Her mother has a valid and pointed argument. The ring was an unconditional gift and a gift is not returned when the parties decide that they are not going to marry. Moreover, her parents have gone to the time and expense of doing the preliminary planning for the wedding, perhaps putting deposits toward the band, the reception hall and so forth. The least that bum can do, they say, is let their not-to-be blushing bride keep the darn ring. Especially since the diamond isn't all that big.

He, on the other hand, has a fraternity brother who has spent three semesters in law school. The friend suggests that the giving of the ring was a conditional gift, one that has as its condition the marriage of the parties. If the wedding does not happen, then the condition is not met and the ring should be returned.

Although etiquette may rule that an engagement ring should be returned when a wedding is called off, regardless of who broke the engagement, the legal system has differing opinions on this issue.

Some of the circumstances that may determine if an engagement ring has to be returned include where you live, how you received the engagement ring, and who broke the engagement.

There was a time when "heart-balm" lawsuits, often known as those for alienation of affection were the rage. The disappointed woman (usually) sued to recover for her anguish and, perhaps, monetary loss. In most jurisdictions, this kind of suit has been banned by court decision or statute. There is, however, a body of law regarding the return or retention of the engagement ring. (In New York, there is a specific statute that allows a Court to determine the disposal of any gift made in contemplation of marriage, in the event the marriage never takes place. Prior to the enactment of this statute, litigants in New York were not permitted to sue for the return of engagement rings.)

Conditional Gift States

Many courts look at an engagement ring as a conditional gift that is given in contemplation of marriage. If there is no marriage, then the engagement ring needs to be returned. Among these states are New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This concept of a conditional gift is familiar to many parents. For example, giving a teenage child the keys to the family car, on the condition that he or she maintain a certain grade point average for a specified period of time. If the child doesn't make the grade, the keys must be returned.

The courts also have held in these states that the reasoning for no-fault divorces holds for no-fault broken engagements so an engagement ring should always be returned regardless of who decided to call off the engagement. It sometimes is not that simple.

In Marshall v. Cassano, the New York court took the majority approach as to how to characterize the engagement ring, deeming it a conditional gift. It also noted that New York generally follows a strict no-fault approach in deciding whether a ring must be returned. In this case, the man, Joseph, was not legally free to marry Dolores because, at the time of the engagement, he was still married to someone else as his divorce was not final. Therefore, the ring could not have been in consideration of marriage; it was simply a gift and gifts need not be returned. In this case, also, it was Joseph who broke off the engagement so, the court was obviously influenced as to who caused the split.

A gift is a gift

In a few states, Montana the most noteworthy, none of these conditional niceties and subtle distinctions apply. A gift is a gift, no ifs ands and buts. Regardless of how the engagement breaks up on who was at fault, the ring remains hers. Suck it up, Bronco.

Who is at fault?

When deciding who gets to keep the engagement ring, courts are not in agreement on whether it should matter who did the breaking up or why. To some judges, it isn't fair that the guy should always get the ring back, especially if the recipient stood ready to go ahead with the marriage and the he broke it off. These same judges think it would be unfair for the lady to keep the ring if the engagement was broken because of the her unfaithfulness or other wrongdoing. In such cases, they order that the ring should be returned to its purchaser. Many states consider this "fault-based" rule best

Other courts, 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.

For example, about eight years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stuck steadfastly to the no-fault reasoning and decreed that the man should always get the ring back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why. The theory behind the "no fault" approach was explained by the Kansas Supreme Court in 1997:

"[S]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."

This was clearly an area into which the Court did not want to venture!

Some courts apply a fault-based rule considering the exchange of the ring to be more like a contract than a conditional gift: The ring is just a symbol of the agreement to marry. If that agreement is not performed, then those involved should be restored to their former positions -- as they would be if the contract was for, say, the delivery of a piece of furniture -- and the ring should be returned to the person who first had it. But if the donor backs out, the lady should keep the ring, because a person who breaches contracts should not be rewarded for doing so.

The bottom line

The rules on returning the ring vary among the states. It is best to resolve disagreements between the parties without recourse to the Courts.

But if all else fails, call a lawyer!