Pop Quiz, Hotshot: You’re madly in love with your significant other, purchase an engagement ring(1), pop the question and your significant other answers “yes” and then, for whatever reason(2), your engagement is later broken. Who gets the ring?
The general rule is this:
An engagement ring is a gift conditioned on a subsequent marriage. If that marriage does not take place, the ring should(3) be returned to the person who gave it.
There are 27 states that agree with this position. The rest of the states take into consideration which party was at fault for the breakup prior to the legal marriage taking place, but this seems to be evolving.
This year (2024)(4), a Massachusetts court changed their position on this issue(5) saying that “fault was too difficult to pinpoint and broken engagements, however painful, ought not to be cast as failures. Assessing blame when one party concludes that a proposed marriage would fail is at odds with a principal purpose of an engagement period which is to test the permanency of the couple’s wish to marry.”
The ingredients of this word salad might be true; but it smells somewhat like the court didn’t want to waste its time listening to the parties argue and wanted to end their practice of litigating fault over a ring(6).
Interestingly enough, Montana is the only state in the nation that considers an engagement ring to be an unconditional gift that does not need to be returned to the gifter if the marriage ceremony does not ultimately take place. The primary lesson here: Montana courts do not want to hear your nonsense.
The general rule is this: An engagement ring is a gift conditioned on a subsequent marriage.
Once the parties say “I do,” the analysis changes. If the couple legally weds, most states consider the gift of the ring as a complete transaction and in the event of divorce, the receiver of the ring is entitled to keep it. There is the argument to be made that the ring is joint marital property and in the event of divorce, is to be distributed evenly between the parties; but as commonly understood, marital property is property acquired after a marriage. So … maybe …(7)
To bottom-line the issue: If you are reading this article, it is a near certainty that you live in the State of Michigan. In 2001, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the donor of a ring is entitled to the ring if the engagement is broken. This was only the second court opinion published on this issue in this state’s history and the Michigan Supreme Court didn’t take the case – essentially saying, “Yup. That’s good enough for us.”
(1) Go see Ronny Medawar. He’ll take care of you. Not sponsored. Recommended.
(2) We’re not litigating fault here.
(3) This author takes no position on the issue at hand.
(4) This was written in December 2024; you will read it, at the earliest, in January 2025. The bosses at My City are unrelenting and DEMAND articles a month in advance. Kidding. They rock.
(5) I know you’re wondering: The ring in question cost $70K.
(6) Note: I am a murder lawyer, not a divorce lawyer. Put no stock in this opinion.
(7) Again, not a divorce lawyer.
(8) You’re obviously wondering about this, too: $19.5K for this one.
