Engagement ring should be returned to donor after marriage plans are abandoned

Law Reporter, Dec 2001

FAMILY LAW

Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc., 629 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).

A Minnesota appellate court held that when an engaged couple abandons marriage plans, the donor of the engagement ring is entitled to its return, regardless of who was at fault.

After a couple ended their engagement, the woman filed a sexual harassment claim against her former employer, whose principal was her former fiance. He then filed a counterclaim for return of the engagement ring. The trial court granted the man summary judgment, finding that the ring was a conditional gift made in contemplation of marriage.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that the return of an engagement ring upon the termination of an engagement is an issue of first impression for Minnesota appellate courts. Citing case law, the court noted that other jurisdictions have uniformly held that marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title of the engagement ring and that the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs.

Finding this reasoning persuasive, the court then considered who is entitled to the ring when the condition is not fulfilled. There is a split of authority on this issue, the court observed, noting that the majority approach resolves the issue by determining ownership on the basis of fault. Under this approach, the court explained, the ring should be returned to the donor if both parties abandon the projected marriage or the recipient unjustifiably breaks the promise to marry. However, the giver of the ring loses his or her rights to it if that person breaks the promise to marry.

In contrast, the minority approach applies a no-fault rule. Under this approach, the ring would be returned to the donor after the engagement is broken, regardless of who was at fault. Many states have adopted this approach, the court observed.

Here, the court noted, the state legislature has applied the no-fault principle to marriage dissolution. Thus, the court reasoned, it is consistent with state public policy to adopt a no-fault approach to the return of an engagement ring. Further, fault should not be given legal significance in cases involving broken engagements because it is impossible to fix with any certainty.

Man's Counsel

James T. Hynes, St. Paul, Minn.

Comment: For another case applying the no-fault approach to the return of an engagement ring, see Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1999), 43 ATLA L. Rep. 97 (Apr. 2000). Joanne Ross Wilder, Pittsburgh, Pa., represented plaintiff.