I’m seeking feedback for a topic I am developing into a column:
I just read an article in our local paper about a PA Senator Joe
Conti, R-Bucks and Montgomery counties, who is talking to the
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General about a consumer
awareness campaign to educate soon-to-be-married couples of case law
that requires the receiver of an engagement ring to return the ring
should the engagement be broken. Conti became aware of this case
during a recent battle between a couple on the outs over a $35,000
ring. That couple did manage to resolve the tiff outside of court,
but the outcome was headed in the same direction as a 1999 court case
in which the state Supreme Court ruled that an engagement ring is a
conditional gift. The condition being marriage. The person who gives
the ring gets to keep the ring, so might the education campaign go,
which might enlist the help of jewelry stores to voluntarily post
notices or display pamphlets about the precedent-setting case.
What do you think about this issue…wondering your thoughts on such
a campaign and the etiquette when it comes to engagement rings as you
see it?
Thanks for your input. Please email to my direct address at daycopy@blazenet.net, if convenient.
My first response is that the government has better things to do
instead of legislating the ultimate fate of an engagement ring.
On another level I would find it offensive to be handed a brochure
pointing out that legally an engagement ring is the property of the
giver until the condition of marriage is met. No sales person
interested in selling a symbol of love would want to debase the
intent of the purchase with such a brochure. It would be rather like
a pre-nup… casting doubt on the ultimate outcome of the engagement.
Finally, I believe the etiquette matriarch Emily Post laid out an
approprite course of action. The party who breaks the engagement
also relinquishes any claim on the engagement ring, unless the couple
agrees to something different. Frankly, I think this is the best
course of action. If the bride-to-be has spent money on wedding plans
which the groom-to-be calls off, selling the ring may allow her to
recoup something.
I don’t think that it would be a good idea to post this info in a
jewelry store. Call me old fashioned, but it sure would be a wet
blanket on the flames of love. Even more so than a pre-nup!
More appropriately, such could be found in a wedding
etiquette book or through a wedding planner or some such source. But
heavens no, not in a jewelry store! Wrong place. No campaign
necessary. I would think most lawyers would have access to the
"precedent setting" case if the situation warranted legal advice.
Etiquette as for engagement rings in cases of broken engagements, to
my knowledge, has always been: the one who breaks the promise looses
the ring. If ‘she’ breaks the engagement she has to give back the
ring. If ‘he’ breaks the engagement, ‘she’ keeps the ring.
I’m pretty sure that is in published etiquette books (and columns)
that way also. Seems to me that long established tradition would
favor heavily in a suit where there was no previous legal precedent.
I just read an article in our local paper about a PA Senator Joe
Conti, R-Bucks and Montgomery counties, who is talking to the
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General about a consumer
awareness campaign to educate soon-to-be-married couples of case
law that requires the receiver of an engagement ring to return the
ring should the engagement be broken.
I had always heard that it depended on who broke off the engagement.
If the giver broke off the engagement, then the ring was kept by the
receiver. If the receiver broke off the engagement, then the ring
had to be given back. I think this is more etiquette than legal and
I can’t see how legally they could force the gift to be given back.
This is a quote on California divorce and family law:
An engagement ring that accompanies a proposal is considered to be a
gift given in the contemplation of marriage. The gift in the form of
the engagement ring would not be given unless for the promise of a
future marriage. There is a statute in the California Civil Code
1590 that addresses this type of gift.
According to the statute, the circumstances surrounding the breakup
determine the proper owner of the engagement ring. The “giver” may
recover the ring or the value of the ring if the “receiver” refuses
to enter into marriage. The “giver” also has a right to recover the
ring if the contemplated marriage is abandoned by mutual consent.
Although not explicitly stated in the statute, subsequent case law
has determined that the “receiver” of the engagement ring is
entitled to keep the ring if the “giver” refuses to enter the
marriage without any fault of the “receiver.” Therefore, if the
"giver" is the one who backs out of the wedding, then the "giver"
does not have the right to get the engagement ring back.
Questions about this belong in a court, not in a jewelry store. I
personally have no intention of practicing or enforcing law this
late in life. As in everything: Caveat emptor. Or rather in this
case: Caveat donor.
Today while reading the Orchid threads, having lunch-brief as that
can be, & listening to The Original Low Riders music w/Lee Oskar, I
saw the post about engagement rings etc. Several years ago, for our
eldest godchild, this issue was raised at divorce time…According
to: www.divorcesource.com --to condense the paragraph:
The giving of the ring is viewed as bestowing upon the donee a
conditional gift. The condition is marriage. When that
condition fails, the donor is entitled to a return of the
ring.
Of course this is often described as a minority position, yet appears
to be emerging as the trend when ownership is litigated…In a
Michigan case-
Where the eng. is broken by the donee, most courts have held
that the donor is entitled to the ring..Conversely, where the
eng. is unjustifiably broken by the donor,he may not recover
the ring..If the eng. is terminated by the mutual consent of
the parties, the general view is that the donor obtains
recovery...
So, as someone earlier suggested, this can lead to legal formality &
you would need to check this over with a lawyer…It would seem that
at the time of "popping the question- it’s a conditional gift…At
the time of marriage, the rings are a symbol of a legal & binding
contract…If there is a length of time in this contract, then the
partner gets to keep them, as partial fullfillment of the contract…
In the end, these rings are sometimes reduced to being metal &
stones…Take care & stay well!!!
Cheers from cold but sunny SF,
Jo-Ann Maggiora Donivan
It is actually is different from state to state. I have watched a
number of court shows and they always first check to see which state
the claimants are from. Then things like who, how or when it broke up
helps make the decision.
In the neighborhood where I grew up, the tradition was: if the boy
breaks the engagement the girl gets to keep the ring. If the girl
breaks the engagement she is obliged to give it back.
…although there were a few gold-diggers who were engaged several
times and never returned the rings.
The “proper etiquette” should start before the engagement dont make
promises you cant keep. maybe they should engrave somthing honest
inside the ring like " 4 evr yours untill somthing better comes
along" or how about wedding insurance you could buy a policy from an
insurance dealer that comes a payoff if things dont go the way you
like them to - goo
Here’s a twist: Since I’ve gotten into the jewelry biz my wife has
decided that the engagement ring I gave her is no longer as good as
she thought it was. I gave her another ring for V-Day.
Brian Corll
Vassar Gems
1002 East Simpson Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Tel.: (717) 691-0286
And if Mom made the ring with grandmothers diamond, Mom gets it
back! Sadly it's in the mail coming back as I write.....So, what
do I do with it?
A friend had her mother’s diamond set as an engagement ring for her
eldest son’s bride… who turned out to be a real bridezilla -
according to the story I heard. Part of the divorce settlement was to
return the diamond to her. She had me set it into a handsome ring for
her husband. He is not a flashy person, but he has enjoyed this ring,
and the stone is staying in the family.
Perhaps you can scrap the metal and reset the stone in a lovely
pendant in memory of the grandmother who originally wore it. Hang in
there,
And if Mom made the ring with grandmothers diamond, Mom gets it
back! Sadly it's in the mail coming back as I write.....So, what do
I do with it?
Marta, I think I would melt it down and make myself a lovely ring or
pendant with Grandma’a diamond. The unhappy couple are not the only
ones who suffer the pains of divorce. Everyone in the family is
effected. I think you, the long-suffering Mom, may have a new piece
of family heirloom jewelry coming your way!
) Topanga, CA USA