a little bit of tour socializing
A friend of mine whose fiancé went completely insane six months before the wedding (a few weeks ago) directed me to the website IDoNowIDont.com, which allows users to auction off their no-longer-needed engagement and wedding rings. (Also notable -- the founder is way cute, and not averse to commitment. I don't know if he's sold the ring he bought for his once-fiancée, but I'll bet his new business endeavor is getting him some play).
My friend doesn't particularly need the money, so she tossed her engagement ring in her fishtank. And then, just before I came to visit, the fish died. So maybe, actually, she should think about selling the curséd* thing.
* I réally liké using thé littlé accént é-thing on my blog, and I felt that "curséd" made the whole thing scan better.
posted by JenIsFamous at 3/12/2007 06:19:00 PM
9 Comments:
One thing for any of you gold diggers out there to consider, is that courts in more than half of our United States consider gifts given in contemplation of marriage to be "conditional". While many a female defendant in a civil action seeking return of an engagement ring (or cash equivalent of same) has indeed claimed successfully that, with respect to an engagement ring, the conditions necessary to create a gift--a) the would-be groom's intent to give the gift of the ring; b) his delivery of the ring to his intended; and, c) the putative bride's acceptance of the ring--have been met even if an engagement is broken off (e.g., so long as she has accepted the PROPOSAL of marriage), this argument, increasingly, has proven a losing one!
Indeed, the majority of courts in the U.S. are now finding that the gift of an engagement ring contains an implied condition of actual marriage. In the famous case of Heiman v. Parish, the Supreme Court of Kansas found, "[O]nce it is established that [the] ring is [an engagement ring], it is a conditional gift." Additionally, while it is true that some states will consider "culpability" for the break-up in their determination--Example: Was the reason for the break-up, say, infidelity on the part of the donor of the ring?--the majority, including New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, are "no fault" states that will not. In Lindh v. Surman, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted a standard whereby the donor always is entitled to return of an engagement ring (or cash equivalent) when an engagement is broken off, regardless of the reasons underlying its having been broken off; the underlying rationale being that the contract is for marriage and not merely promise to marry. [NOTE: In case you're wondering, yes, Lindh's reasoning has been applied to gay and lesbian civil unions.]
The bottom line is, it's probably not a good idea for a woman to auction off her engagement ring on the site mentioned, on eBay, or anywhere else. She can be sued for the ring's actual return or, barring the practicability of its return, its cash value at the time of purchase. Chances are more than likely that she'll lose.
How awesome!!! One can sell they're no longer needed wedding bling...
Matt--
how do these actions for return of the wedding ring relate to the old heart balm torts which I had understood to be universally abandoned by the states?
Does the statute of limitations run from the break up? What actions, if any, by the groom could convert it from a conditional to a perfected gift (e.g., I assume if post-break up the ex groom/donor said to the ex bride/donee "Go ahead, keep the ring," that would do the trick, no?).
Also, poor fish!
Matt, I think it's telling that you jumped to "gold diggers."
The site was started by a man whose fiancee left him, leaving the ring behind.
My (female) friend's fiance broke up with her and told her he didn't want the ring back.
It is often the case that if the man breaks off the engagement, he permits the women to keep the ring out of politeness (of a sort).
In no case have we heard anything of a woman callously breaking off an engagement and attempting to resell the ring on the internet.
Never had to worry about that. The guy that wanted to marry me was too cheap to buy a ring.
1) I wish to apologize to anyone who took offense to my use of the term "gold diggers" in my original post. As has been noted numerous times on this blog, sarcasm does not always give itself to easy translation when written. In fact, while "gold digging" may be an unsavory trait, it is not endemic to the females of the species. I know that, and I therefore consider the prevailing opinion that being "mendacious", "grasping", "greedy", [your pejorative adjective here] is in some way "feminine", to be extremely sexist and therefore offensive. My bad for not having enclosed the term with appropriate quotation marks. Please, accept that amendment, and know that it is never my intention to provoke discord so much as thought here.
2) To answer Anonymous' question, let me be (uncharacteristically) brief in saying that I believe I have given an accurate reporting as to the state of the law in the majority of states as of 2007. The considerations that may underlie LEGISLATIVE invalidation of the so-called "heart-balm" remedies to which Anonymous alludes, are somewhat different from the more limited scope of judicial review. This is because while legislatures are supposed to act in a result-oriented manner (i.e., with at least the ostensible goal of promoting sound public policy), courts are more limited in their mandate to INTERPRET, rather than create or modify, law. A legislature may alter existing laws to reflect evolving societal standards and/or policy concerns; a court can merely speak to the issue of an existing law's meaning and, given that meaning, legality. A good analogy might be that the court is like a baseball umpire who is charged with determining whether a given pitch is a ball or a strike, but who is nevertheless powerless to change the fundamental principle of "three strikes and you're out".
Dear Anonymous,
To answer your other questions, let me first state that I am not a practising attorney. As lawyers (and doctors and other professionals) like to jokingly say, "It's not my field."
Of course, there are indeed ways to turn an engagement ring into an unconditional gift, as engagement rings and the like were before courts began implying that they are not. Remember that, in construing engagement rings to be conditional gifts, courts necessarily must look to what condition must be met to render the intent, offer, delivery, and acceptance of the ring a valid gift. That is, courts in having determined that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, necessarily are construing the engagement ring to be an inducement to enter into a contract of marriage; not merely consideration given in return for being engaged. For that reason, when asking about how a statute of limitations might apply here, I think an interesting question would be whether the statute of limitations should begin tolling as of the date that the engagement is broken off, the date when the ring was originally proffered, the date when the marriage otherwise would have taken place (if known), etc.
Consider: I offer Jen an engagement ring and ask her to marry me. She accepts the engagement ring, but prior to our even setting a date on which we are to be married, the engagement is called off. [NOTE: In New York, it would be irrelevant why the engagement was broken off; as a "no fault" state, New York would afford me the remedy of return of the engagement ring, or cash equivalent at time of purchase, with no questions asked.] Assuming that the breaking of the engagement constitutes a frustration of purpose, nevertheless there was never any contract and nor was there any date certain on which the contract was to have gone into effect. My visceral sense, then, is that the statute of limitations should begin tolling as of that date on which Jen refuses to return my ring; my reasoning being that until such time as we are in fact married (i.e., there is a contract), the ring continues to belong to me even if my fiancee is wearing it. In refusing to return my ring now that she no longer has permission to possess it, Jen is in effect absconding with my property, and that really is the cause of action moreso than any breach of contract.
I realize that mine is a rather simplistic view, but I don't think the matter needs to be complicated further. To my mind, the matter itself is rather elementary; the reasoning need not be overly convoluted. Absent my having expressly created an unconditional gift, the ring is, if you will, like a "refundable deposit". It remains mine at all times until it becomes Jen's; therefore, her refusal to return my property to me upon demand is what gives rise to the cause of action in tort. The statute of limitations should, therefore, begin tolling accordingly. Additionally, it could be argued that my remedy need not be return of the actual ring, but rather its value as Jen has effectuated a forced sale!
I welcome any lawyer who may be reading this post to blow my argument to bits.
Matt
Well, even today in the absence of statutory guidance courts still recognize and expand new common law torts and alter legal standards.
In any event, I'm looking at 4 A.L.R.5th §11. The key distinction seems to be abstractness. The anti-heartbalm statutes prevented recovery for hurt feelings and humiliation and the like, but courts have apparently held that the statutes do not prevent recovery for concrete injuries, such as keeping of a wedding ring.
Your suggestion that the statute of limitations doesn't run until the ex-fiance demands its return would mean that the ex could demand its return as much as ten or fifteen years or more later, and still have a valid cause of action--which would seem to defeat the point of a statute of limitations.
I haven't found anything on point about the statute of limitations though, and I don't feel digging through the cases at the moment.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, if you have legal questions you should consult a licensed attorney.)
Anonymous, traditionally a statute of limitations begins running at such time as a claim accrues. My point was simply that if one accepts that the engagement ring is given as an inducement to enter into a contract to marry, and not as consideration proffered in return for a promise to marry (i.e., if one accepts that the ring is a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage), then the only way that its ownership transfers to the putative bride, is if she and the donor of the ring are in fact wed. Looking at my home state of New York, here's what would happen:
A offers B a ring and asks her to marry him. B accepts the ring and says that she will marry A. The engagement is subsequently broken; it being irrelevant in New York why, as New York is a so-called "no fault" state. A is entitled to the return of the engagement ring, because the contract for marriage has never been executed and the ring therefore is still his even though it may be worn by B. At such time as B refuses to give back A's ring on demand, what is known as a "conversion" has occurred. The statute of limitations begins running at that point.
Now, you raised the issue of it being counter-intuitive that A could, say, wait fifteen years before asking B for the return of the engagement ring, with the statute of limitations beginning with that act. Indeed, you are right that A would in all likelihood not be able to wait fifteen years before requesting return of the ring. But the reason why that is so, has something to do with the concept of "laches".
I will not here offer a primer on tort law, but suffice to say that laches is a concept that deals with the forfeiture of a right as a result of failure to excercise that right within a reasonable time. In the engagement ring case, it could be argued that if A waited fifteen years to ask for the return of the engagement ring, he had effectively given B notice that he did not intend to prosecute the claim. B's having sold the ring to a pawn broker during that time would almost certainly be viewed as having been entirely reasonable, and laches would almost certainly prohibit recovery by A. On the other hand, if A had waited merely a week, say, before asking B to return his ring--perhaps hoping that differences might be reconciled and the marriage might indeed take place (i.e., that this was all just a spat that will blow over with the contract for marriage in fact being executed when all is otherwise said and done)--a court might determine that his failure to ask for immediate return of the ring was not unreasonable.
That is laches basically, and in a nutshell. The simple answer is that there is no way that the scenario you posit would come to pass. Indeed, for all practical purposes, if one wants the engagement ring back, he should seek its return in a "timely" fashion, however so defined.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home