Who gets the engagement ring if the marriage doesn't occur? In Michigan, the court of appeals held in Meyer v. Mitnick that the ring was a "conditional gift" and if the marriage does not occur, then the ring has to be returned to the donor.
A recent New York Times article indicates that not all people ascribe to that belief. Perhaps the ring itself is worth a sufficient amount of money to provoke litigation over its return. In a recent high-profile case, we're talking about more than a quarter million dollars! [Note: This case was settled prior to litigation.]
That high-profile case involved Sharon Bush and Gerald Tsai, the billionaire investor who has since died. In December 2006, Mr. Tsai gave Ms. Bush (the former wife of Neil Bush, a brother of the president) an 11-carat canary-diamond ring he bought for $243,040. Later, the engagement was called off. Ms. Bush did not return the ring. She said that the ring was just a gift--one of others given as Christmas gifts, and claimed that it did not have to be returned. Mr. Tsai filed suit in Manhattan Supreme Court seeking its return.
Courts have resolved this issue in varied manner. Gary L. Nickelson of Forth Worth, president-elect of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, says that in Texas exceptions were sometimes made depending on who instigated the breakup. Although the courts there generally accept the premise that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, he said that in a 2003 decision: “the court decided that if the donor was the one who broke the promise, then the recipient could keep it. It gets sticky if the groom calls it off. He has broken the condition, so some courts say that he should probably suffer and not gain rights to the ring.”
To read the New York Times article If Things Fall. Who Gets the Ring?
Thank you for bringing up this, i disagree for the engagement ring could be returned,engagement is a symbol of eternal love so we have to take care of it,not unless you don't loved each other anymore.
by: rhianne
Posted by: tungsten wedding ring | June 08, 2009 at 06:29 AM