New York Divorce and Family Law Blog : New York Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Clement Law Firm : Family Law Serving Manhattan, Westchester County, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, New York City

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?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

This is primarily a blog about New York divorce. In it, I have repeatedly written about people fighting over engagement rings or engaged in their epic divorce struggles.  

For a change, on a hot summer day, I though I would acknowledge a touching and romantic piece from  The New York Times  on the loss of a wedding ring. 

I have worn my wedding ring every single day since my wedding more than seven years ago. I had never misplaced it before. But there I was staring at my bare finger. I noticed the indentation left by the ring, like a phantom band, and the skin tone of this narrow groove, a shade paler than the rest. I felt guilty, as though I had committed an act of infidelity. I imagined my wife’s quiet disappointment; there is nothing in the world quite like it. My hand grew heavy.

I offer this  op-ed piece as momentary diversion from the divorce battles and to re-affirm why it is we marry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks

If parties do not wed, the engagement ring must be returned.   A engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. The engagement ring is a conditional gift and if the marriage does not take place, the condition has not been satisfied and the ring must be returned. 

Despite this “golden rule,” it is sometimes necessary to litigate to compel the return of the ring. Indeed, I had to file one such action this week.

With only one exception, the reason the parties failed to marry is irrelevant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks