August, 2004

Return of the Ring

Brad and Mary were dating for 3 years when Brad decided that he was ready for marriage.  Since he was a romantic, he wanted to do it up right.  He went out and bought a big diamond ring and on Christmas Eve he popped the question to her while they were ice skating under the moonlight. 

Unfortunately for Brad, he was a recovering alcoholic.  And he was so nervous about getting married that he fell off the wagon.  Mary had supported Brad through his recovery and decided enough was enough.  The wedding was called off.  Brad was crushed, but not too crushed to forget the $5,000 diamond ring he gave Mary.    After having a couple of belts to steel his nerves, Brad went and demanded the ring back.  Mary, who felt she had wasted the last 3 years of her life, felt she earned the ring and told Brad to "shove off."

Brad sues for the return of the ring.  Who wins?

The first question we have to answer is whether the ring was a gift or  a pledge towards the marriage.  If it was a gift then Mary keeps the ring - end of discussion.  If it was a pledge then Brad is still alive.  In Massachusetts, "it is generally held that an engagement ring is in the nature of a pledge, given on the implied condition that the marriage shall take place."  DeCicco v. Barker, 339 Mass. 457 (1959).

Brad gave her the ring on Christmas Eve so that is one argument Mary can make that it was a gift.  But if he bought her something else for Christmas, say a nice vacuum cleaner, then he can argue that that was the gift and the ring only a pledge.  For the sake of discussion, let's say he sprung for the Hoover and the ring is considered a pledge.

The second question is to determine who was at fault for the breakup.  "If the ring was a pledge and the contract to marry is terminated without fault on the part of the donor he may recover the ring."  DeCicco v. Barker.  Mary called off the wedding.  Does that means she was at fault for the breakup?  No.  In this state, "the person who terminates an engagement is not necessarily at fault."  Poirier v. Raad, 3 Mass. Law Reporter 265 (Worcester Superior Court 1995).  Some engagements may be terminated by one party because of the other party's improper behavior.  Id.

So that's the big question.  Was Brad "without fault" for the breakup?  Or did he engage in any improper behavior that led to the breakup?  In our case, both sides have an argument.  Mary can say Brad killed the wedding plans when he took that first sip.  Brad can say he just got drunk.  It's not like he hit her or cheated on her.  My vote goes to Mary because I would have done the same thing in her shoes.  Of course no one gives me engagement rings so what do I know?