Return of Engagement Ring - New York Has Jurisdiction Over Runaway Brides
The engagement ring cases keep coming.
In the latest reported engagement ring case, Dreznick v Lenchner, the loving couple resided together in New York when they became engaged to be wed. A year and a half later, the woman ended the engagement and moved from the man’s residence with an engagement ring, a dog, and other items of personal property allegedly belonging to the man. The jilted man demanded the return of the ring and other property and the woman, who had moved to California, refused. The man commenced suit and the woman sought to have the action dismissed, claiming a New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
In a rather curious ruling, the Appellate Division found that personal jurisdiction was obtained on the cause of action for the return of the engagement ring under CPLR 302(b). That section grants a New York court personal jurisdiction over non-residents and non-domiciliaries in "matrimonial actions."
As Thomas Swartz questions, since the parties were never married, how could CPLR 302(b) apply?
The Court did not elaborate. Perhaps, deliberately so, hoping that the "just" result would not be questioned. After all, this woman just did not want to return the ring. She lost at the trial court level and appealed. (It must have been some ring for them to spend that much money fighting about it.)
It is interesting that the appellate court took such an expansive view of the term matrimonial action.
I wonder if the court will take such an expansive view when it is confronted with a break up of a same sex relationship.
Couldn't the Court have used CPLR 302(a)(1) to find jurisdiction?? That provisions grants jurisdiction over anyone who, "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state." Is entering into a contract in NY to marry "transacting business" in NY?? Or is entering into a contract to marry to provide marriage "services" in NY supplying goods or services in the state?? I don't know, but perhaps the Court should have cited CPLR 302(a)(1) in addition to CPLR 302(b). I don't believe CPLR 302(b) by itself is sufficient.
Daughter summoned to small claims court August 25,2007. She accepted engagement ring when pregnancy confirmed 10/2003. Carlo D'Angelo arrested June 14,2004 on manufacturing meth.ecstacy=largest ever in NE USA.Daughter shocked but tried to stay with criminal until found huffing gasoline. After D'Angelo refused to care for child financially, ring sold.D'Angelo had signed paper to stop harassment over ring. July 2007, D'angelo used small claims court to regain ring or $4,000.00. judge saw receipt=$1999 and signed statement to stop harassment over ring. Judge said he would rule using WEST LAW.Daughter assaulted July,2007 sfter D'Angelo could not retrieve ring.
After 3 yrs. after my ex gave me the ring saying someday we would get married, we were vacationing in FL when my mother became ill. Not only would this man not take me to the airport, but told me not to contact him any longer. My mother passed away 2 weeks longer. This man did not
come to give support, but did not contact me when he heard she had passed. He has a great deal of my furninture, although I was only spending weekends there because I was
taking care of my parents. He kept pushing me to move in, but never mentioned marriage. I believe that I
have a right to the ring as it was basically a "gift". Comments please.
After 3 yrs. after my ex gave me the ring saying someday we would get married, we were vacationing in FL when my mother became ill. Not only would this man not take me to the airport, but told me not to contact him any longer. My mother passed away 2 weeks longer. This man did not
come to give support, but did not contact me when he heard she had passed. He has a great deal of my furninture, although I was only spending weekends there because I was
taking care of my parents. He kept pushing me to move in, but never mentioned marriage. I believe that I
have a right to the ring as it was basically a "gift". Comments please.
I can only speak for New York Law, not Florida where you live.
A engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. As explained in the post, with one exception, if there is no marriage, the ring must be returned. There is no exception because the ex is not a nice person.
As for the your property, commence an action to recover it.
I live in california. I have been engaged for 4 years and dating 8 years. We are no longer together, he wants the ring back. Whos ring is it.