It's a bling thing: Does the ring get 'left at the altar' when an engagement fails?

By: Marie E. Matyjaszek Attorney, Jackson, Michigan People get married. People get divorced. Some people stay together their whole lives. But what happens to the shiny, expensive diamond ring when somebody doesn't go through with it? As a girl who loves all shiny baubles, I think it's ridiculous to assume she had not done something to deserve it, and therefore, should be allowed to retain it. Unfortunately for me and other Cartier loving women, the Michigan Court of Appeals does not agree. In the 2001 case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 224 Mich App 697, Dr. Barry Meyer had given his girlfriend Robyn Mitnick a $19,500 engagement ring in August of 1996. A few months later, he asked her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, which apparently did not go over too well with Ms. Mitnick as she refused to do so and they broke up. Naturally, both sides alleged that the other had been the one to call the wedding off, but one thing was clear: Dr. Meyer wanted the bling back. Dr. Meyer's position, which the trial court agreed with, was that the ring was given only because the parties were to be married, and when that didn't occur, he rightfully deserved to have the ring returned to him. Ms. Mitnick countersued and argued that the ring was an unconditional gift, and she should be allowed to retain it since it was Dr. Meyer's fault the engagement was broken. Prior case law considered fault to be dispositive - In re Lowe Estate, 146 Mich App 325 (1985), opined that whoever did not break the engagement got to keep the ring. If both parties agreed to end the engagement, the donor was to have the ring returned to him because no specific fault could be found. In the Meyer v. Mitnick decision, the Court of Appeals looked to other jurisdictions because at that time, there was no Michigan law on point. The Court stated that "the jurisdictions that have considered cases dealing with the gift of an engagement ring uniformly hold that marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title and that the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs." Siding with Dr. Meyer, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling in his favor, holding that fault does not come into play when deciding who retains the engagement ring. Instead, it stated that "an engagement ring given in contemplation of marriage is an impliedly conditional gift that is a completed gift only upon marriage. "If the engagement is called off, for whatever reason, the gift is not capable of becoming a completed gift and must be returned to the donor." Once the actual marriage occurs, the transfer of title to the engagement ring is completed, making it an absolute gift to the new bride, one which she can retain as her sole property. If the couple breaks up prior to the big day, the ring is returned to the would-be groom, for him to do with it what he pleases. I don't know if he should keep it, holding out hope that they'll get back together, or sell it while gold and diamond prices are high. Either way, one thing is certain: while love may be unconditional, the ring sure isn't. Editor's Note: The author is an associate attorney at the Law Office of Robert Matyjaszek PLLC, Jackson, Michigan. She can be reached at (517) 787-0351 or by emailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com. Published: Fri, Dec 18, 2009

––––––––––––––––––––
 Subscribe to the Legal News!
 https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available