How California Handles Engagement Rings
When it comes to the topic of engagement rings, California generally adopts the rule that an engagement ring is a gift given to a fiancé by a fiancé that should revert to ownership of the donee if a broken engagement occurs. Many states follow this general rule, however, there are other potential rules that may apply depending on the circumstances and facts. An engagement ring is normally a conditional gift because it is given to the donee (recipient) upon the condition of subsequent marriage. The fact that the subsequent marriage did not occur results in the condition precedent not being satisfied and thus the engagement ring is forfeited or returned to the donor (giver). For example, suppose a couple gets engaged and the donee receives an engagement ring as a gift; but then the couple fails to get married as contemplated. The general rule applies and the donee forfeits title to the engagement ring and the engagement ring reverts back to at least co-ownership if not full ownership of the donor of the engagement ring . However, suppose in California that the donor gave the engagement ring conditioned upon the marriage; but neither the donor nor donee intended to create an enforceable contract. The result is that a gift was made by the donor at the time of transfer and the donor (the giver) has no claim as to the return of the engagement ring. Likewise, suppose in California that no conditions were attached to the transfer of the engagement ring; then the engagement ring is deemed an absolute gift to the recipient regardless of whether the donor intends for the recipient to hold the engagement ring as security of satisfaction of a debt owed to the donor. Thus, in California, if an engagement ring is considered a gift, notwithstanding the fact that it was given to the donee as a result of an agreement that the donee would marry the donor, California courts will treat it as a gift without regard to the alleged intention of the parties or any contrary conduct of the donee.
Gifts with Conditions: What Happens When an Engagement Ends?
Conditional gifts are those which are attached to an express or implied condition with the meaning that in the absence of fulfillment of the condition, the gift may be revoked by the giver. Thus, a conditional gift will be created when the donor attaches a condition by the express language of the transfer, or where the surrounding circumstances indicate that the donor intended such a condition.
The California Supreme Court in the case of In re Estate of Ringling (1947) 30 Cal. 2d 13, 15-16 outlined the law regarding conditional gifts such as engagement rings. It explained: In California…the weight of authority sustains the view that the giving of a ring in consideration of marriage normally creates a conditional gift, and that delivery of the ring in response to an offer to marry constitutes an acceptance of the offer only upon fulfillment of the condition. Thus in Williams v. Smith (1945) 59 Cal.App.2d 389, 395-396 [139 P.2d 943], the court held that the giving of a ring in response to an offer to marry creates a conditional gift if the evidence indicates that the parties intended that the engagement be made only upon fulfillment of the condition.
The appellate Court in Williams v. Smith (1945) 59 Cal.App.2d 389, 414-415 explained that if an engagement is broken off, per the California Supreme Court, the donee of the ring could keep the ring "if the failure of the marriage was caused by the donor." Similarly, a conditional gift is not forfeited if the donee is the innocent party to an engagement which ended in a dissolution.
As in many civil law matters, the analysis of whether the ring is unconditional or conditional, and whether a forfeiture of the ring is required, come down to the facts of the particular case.
Who Gets to Keep the Ring After a Split?
California is not a community property state. All gifts that are given during engagement are separate property. So legally, there is no community property interest in the ring.
However, an action must be commenced to obtain recovery of the ring. In other words, if an engagement is broken, the party that gave the ring apparently cannot legally force the other party to give it back, but can sue for its recovery.
Most people have very strong emotional attachments to an engagement ring and as a result, the parties will have a lot of reasons to fight over it, especially since the engagement has just broken off.
Judges may actually be nicer to a party who is not perceived to be the "bad guy" or the one who "ended the engagement." One judge wrote: "I cannot be aware of all the facts surrounding the engagement. Nonetheless, I do know that if a lady accepts a ring from a gentleman with the intention of becoming engaged (and marriage) and is not made "an honest woman of," well, she shouldn’t get to keep the ring, either. On the other hand, if an engagement is canceled for reasons completely beyond the woman’s control, my instinct is to find a way for her to keep the ring and start again provided (and a really big "if" here) she does so without making any claims against the erstwhile betrothed. As an officer of the Court I can say this: a breach of a promise to marry is one of the few actions in which you cannot sue for damages, only for a return of the engagement ring."
What Factors Could Impact This Outcome?
Even with a marriage certificate, there are instances when the losing party contests the result in court. In the event of an annulled or terminated engagement, the courts will typically intervene if the engagement ring recipient refuses to return the ring. While some states automatically give the ring to the offeror, California courts generally consider the following factors when awarding the ring to either party:
Breakup Reason
Courts will often award the ring to the party who ended the relationship unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
Fault
Though California courts do not make decisions based on fault concerning the actual engagement, they have been known to consider issues such as one partner being unfaithful, committing criminal acts, or being abusive . The courts may decide in favor of the offeror, even without a written agreement, if the recipient engaged in clear and convincing behavior to tarnish the offeror’s life in any way.
Written Agreements
Likewise, if both partners agreed in writing to give up the ring in the case of an annulment or termination, the court will likely award it to the offeror.
Gifts
Unless proven otherwise, California courts assume the ring is a gift to the recipient, so the recipient may keep it if the breakup occurs for any reason.
Engagement Ring Entrustment
If the recipient can prove that the ring was a gift as soon as the offeror handed it over, the court may award the ring to the recipient.
Case Studies in Engagement Ring Determination
Engagement ring laws in California, a state with a "no-fault" divorce policy, have been in flux for many years. Still unclear is the extent to which modern marriage contracts are binding in the eyes of the law and whether a "broken engagement" amounts to a valid breach of contract for which damages can be recovered. Furthermore, California case law lags behind the rest of the country with regard to implied conditions in "trial" marriages in which a couple lives together before they marry.
One of the earliest decisions on "breach of promise" law regarding engagement rings stemmed from a 1935 court interpretation. In the Hartog v. Seng (1935) case, the appellate court gave no indication that California courts would hold that an engagement ring given as a temporary loan should be returned once a marriage did not take place. The court determined that the defendant’s misrepresentation regarding the price of the "Montelupo nativity plate" he offered to the plaintiff, Ms. Hartog, amounted to fraud, and she was entitled to rescind the contract.
Ultimately, the California courts decided in favor of Ms. Hartog, awarding her $4,540.50, an amount she subsequently refused to collect as a gift to the plaintiff. The appellate court held, in the Hartog case, that since the plaintiff had died and could not suffer from a judgment against him, the loss of the elapsing rights to the nativity plate was not real, constituting only a "gratuitous judgment."
In another example of how California courts have handled cases that involve fraud with regards to engagement rings, in the case of May v. Wilson (1989), a man offered a woman a tax return claim check as an engagement ring. She accepted it, but when he died before their marriage could take place, the court ruled found that she did not have a valid right to the check.
California courts eventually passed RULPA (Revised Uniform Partnership Act) in 1998, effectively making partners in domestic arrangements (marriage not required) eligible to receive health care coverage and other benefits related to workplace group insurance coverage.
Under California law, an engagement ring is considered a gift. This premise holds true unless an implied or express condition exists. Still, there are no set rules regarding implied or express conditions that guide division of property in California legal proceedings. Courts will typically take into account the nature of the relationship when issues such as where to draw the line on gifts that are offered or rejected.
California’s Guidance for Engagement Ring Situations
If you are a party to an engagement and the engagement is broken off, then determining the owner of the engagement ring is often left to courts. A court may decide that the donor is entitled to the engagement ring or it may find that the donee is entitled to the ring.
In California, the law that judges use when making these decisions is complex and may be best explained by the Legislative Counsel’s Digest when they commented on AB 2171:
Existing statutory law provides that a gift is irrevocable. Existing statutory law also provides that in the case of divorce or annulment of marriage, the "wedding gifts" made between the parties, as well as any gifts during the marriage that are charged to community property funds, are subject to division by the court in the same manner as other community property assets. Existing case law provides that, in the case of an engagement , an engagement ring is a gift that the donor cannot take back even if the engagement is broken off, but that under certain circumstances, the engagement ring is community property. The case law addressing this issue is not clear regarding the particular circumstances under which an engagement ring is community property.
The bill would provide that if the parties to a marriage or domestic partnership have entered into an engagement and the engagement is subsequently broken off, the engagement ring is the separate property of the party who is entitled to it in order to prevent any unjust enrichment of the intended recipient of the engagement ring in cases where the intended recipient breaks the engagement and the parties have not yet taken legally binding steps towards marriage.
Therefore, if your engagement has been broken off, consult with your lawyer on the proper disposition of the ring.