SO YOU PUT A RING ON IT AND NOW YOU WANT IT BACK ...
The law is unclear on who gets the jewelry in such cases, writes Laurie H. Pawlitza.
Family lawyers regularly deal with tricky issues relating to separation and divorce, marriage contracts and cohabitation agreements.
But when a couple fails to make it down the aisle, we can find ourselves giving advice on one of the most vexing questions of all: who gets to keep the engagement ring?
Unfortunately, the law is far from clear.
In the 2011 case of Mastromatteo v. Dayball, Deputy Judge Winny of Ontario small claims court summed up many of the legal questions that still complicate such disputes.
“’The net effect of the authorities,” according to Winny, “appears to be this: the ring may or may not be recoverable; the decision may or may not turn on who broke off the engagement; and the donor (ring-giver) may or may not be too late to claim recovery if he or she does not do so immediately upon breakup.”
The case law on who keeps the engagement ring goes back as far as 1742 in England. While the original purpose of the engagement ring has mostly been forgotten, it was actually meant to bind the couple to their bargain to marry, and was given on the understanding that the person who breaks the contract must return it.
Deciding who did the breaking is not always easy.
In 2012, Deputy Judge A.P. Parlee of Ontario small claims court summarized the evening that led to a broken engagement between a certain Ms. Delledonne and a Mr. Mihichuk.
Ms. Delledonne left a romantic dinner at Mr. Mihichuk’s house, then returned with her mother. At that point “Mr. Mihichuk called Ms. Delledonne an unflattering name and Ms. Delledonne reciprocated. The insults by each party expanded to include members of the other’s extended family. The insults were bilateral. (The evidence from Ms. Delledonne and her mother) was that Mr. Mihichuk trampled (Ms. Delledonne’s) clothes which he had previously thrown on the driveway…. (and) that Mr. Mihichuk was making gestures with his hands and his head in the commonly recognized gesture as meaning crazy or insane and further he stuck out his tongue.”
The judge concluded that Ms. Delledonne could keep the ring.
In deciding whether postponing a wedding ends the engagement, the Nova Scotia small claims court decided this year that if the intention is to postpone indefinitely, this ends the engagement.
In the same case, the adjudicator decided that if the other party then ended the relationship after the wedding was postponed, the indefinite postponement trumped the ending of the relationship. The first person responsible lost possession of the ring.
Many cases consider whether it was a condition of the gift of the ring that the marriage occur. If so, this is a “conditional” gift, requiring the return of the ring if there is no marriage. If there was no such condition, the ring is deemed to be an “absolute” gift, and the recipient of the ring keeps it.
In McArthur v. Zaduk, a 2001 case in Ontario, the court went further and considered the terms of an engagement itself and whether both parties agreed on sexual fidelity as a condition of the engagement.
Where the husband-to-be broke off the engagement because of his fiancée’s infidelity, the court found that his fiancée had not agreed to a “closed” relationship. The court held that his fiancée’s infidelity was not a breach of the conditional gift. Adding insult to injury, the judge went further and also decided that because the husband-tobe did not ask for the ring back when he broke off the engagement, he could not seek its return later on.
In the 2015 Alberta case of Hood v Skauge, the court had to decide whether the couple had ever really decided to marry. In a truly Canadian moment, Mr. Skauge remembered that he had given Ms. Hood the $100,000 ring prior to a particular 2008 hockey game.
While Mr. Skauge described proposing on four other occasions (though not on this one), and despite the fact that Ms. Hood placed the ring on her engagement finger when she received it, Justice Jones held that the giving of the ring was not “coupled with a promise to marry.” Ms. Hood kept the ring.
In a number of jurisdictions, including Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, legislation takes fault out of the equation — that is, court need not decide who was responsible for the broken engagement.
Unfortunately, this has not settled whether it can still be argued that the gift of a ring is conditional on the marriage taking place.
In Ontario, one line of authority suggests that as the action for breach of promise to marry was abolished long ago, the parties should not be able to litigate about the ring when they can no longer sue for the marriage itself not taking place.
In short, this line of authority means that “a gift is a gift.”
The other line of authority is equally strong. It holds that while the legislation has removed the need for a court to decide who was responsible for breaking the engagement, it still must decide whether the gift was conditional on the marriage taking place.
Diamonds may be forever, but the fights over them can last almost as long.