The Return of Engagement Rings Re-Visited
In writing this blog, I always find it interesting to observe which articles are most viewed. Over time, I have observed that the articles I’ve written about broken engagements and the return of engagement rings are quite heavily trafficked. So then, it came as no surprise to me that the New York Times contained a fairly comprehensive article about If Things Fall Apart, Who Gets The Ring?
While the law in New York regarding the return of engagement rings is well settled, the article points out that there is no uniform national rule about the return of engagement rings if the couple fails to marry.
Most states, New York included, follow the rule that:
. . . in recent years courts have almost always held that the ring goes back to the buyer, no matter the circumstances. The premise is that the engagement ring is a conditional gift — the condition being that a marriage take place. And if it does not, the agreement is rendered null and void. Furthermore, courts have ruled that it does not matter who broke the engagement, the donor or the recipient.
In New York, the exception to the to the rule is that if the man is married when he proposes and gives an engagement ring to his second bride-to-be, he cannot legally contract to marry. If the second marriage does not take place, he does not get the ring back.
For those who care, the law may be different from what is good etiquette or chivalrous. According to the article proper etiquette dictates that:
. . . the person who breaks the engagement is responsible for making good. “If the woman breaks it, she should send the ring back immediately,” Ms.[Letitia] Baldrige said. “If it is the man, he should say, ‘Of course you keep the ring.’ ”
As for the laws of chivalry, Raoul Felder questioned “I can’t understand how a man is not embarrassed to ask for his ring back. It always amazes me what happened to chivalry.”
I wonder if Mr. Felder represents only women or, if he represents men, does he advise them that though legal entitled to the return of the engagement rings, they should not seek to recover it because they are being un-chivalrous?
View My LinkedIn Profile
Follow me on Twitter
Married in NY Fan Page
Comments (4)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endMarion TD Lewis - November 30, 2008 5:25 PM
This is definitely one of those very interesting points in the law of divorce in New York. I had one client who actually married the man, but later moved for an annulment. He felt he should get the ring back. Since an annulment technically says the marriage never happened, I would be curious to hear what people thought should happen in that scenario? I did write an entry on my blog Divorce Saloon about this engagement ring issue that your readers might want to look at. Here is the link.
can I keep the ring
By Marion TD Lewis, Esq. A New York Divorce Attorney and author of Divorce Saloon, New York
J. Doe - December 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Cut your losses, Learn from it, and don't do it again! If the woman hands it over without you asking for it, get it out of the house immediately. Put it in a safe place for the time being. she'll want it back with or without you.
If she refuses to give it back, take her butt to court and inform the judge that you want to donate it's worth to the local food pantry. But, don't her know that until she's there in court.
Bobby Dempsey - February 11, 2009 12:02 AM
I will agree that in most cases the man would expect the woman to give the ring back. However, if she had been living in an abusive (alcoholic with verbal abuse) relationship with him and later gets the courage to call it off, I think she should keep it (and sell it) as her reward for the time she endured his abuse!
daniel Schwartz - February 11, 2009 6:42 PM
Over the years I've had two engagement ring cases. In one case, where I represented the groom who broke off the engagement five weks before the wedding, the bride's father refused to give back the ring, claiming he suffered losses in the form of lost deposits paid to caterers and other vendors. The parties, Orthodox Jews, went to arbitration before a rabbinical court. The rabbis directed that the ring be returned since in Jewish law the cost of the wedding is the husband's obligation, thus anything paid by the bride's father was voluntary. The Bride's father than started a breach of implied contract action, which had not been techinically addressed at the arbitration. Ultimately the man returned the ring, and paid a $5,000.00 attorneys fee for his frivolous conduct.
The second case was far more ironic, if less litigation intense. The groom bought the engagement ring, for something approaching fair market value from the bride's mother. This was an heirloom ring in the bride's family for three or four generations, and the girls wanted to get engaged with it. The bride broke off the engagement and the groom demanded return of the ring. I repreented the bride and tried to argue that the sale of the ring from the mother to the groom was conditioned on the marriage. The court held that since the groom paid close to fair market value, and there was no proof of any such condition, the Civil Right's law applied and he kept the ring.