When this diamond ring doesn’t shine for you anymore, when this diamond ring doesn’t mean what it meant before,* in other words, the wedding’s off, who gets the engagement ring? That’s the issue before the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a case that could see the justices change state law.
Diamonds are forever. Engagements, not so much
It began in 2017 when a would-be groom liked it so he put a ring on it* – a $70K ring from Tiffany & Co. His girlfriend said yes but while diamonds are forever – the engagement lasted maybe as long as a loaf of bread. He broke things off soon after giving her the ring, accusing her of having an affair and being verbally abusive.
Will you accept this conditional gift (aka: engagement ring)?
Massachusetts law considers an engagement ring a “conditional gift.” They are, after all, unique from other gifts, symbolizing a mutual moral and emotional commitment. The giver in this case sued to get the ring back, attempting to prove the receiver was at fault for the change in plans. The lower court ruled against him on the basis he didn’t prove she cheated, and he appealed.
No-fault engagement rings?
The appeals court ruled for the giver, kind of. It decided the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court should follow other states’ no-fault engagement ring policies, where the ring goes back to the giver, regardless of who is at fault for breaking it all off.
Why this case doesn’t shine for me anymore
As a litigator, I think this stinks, for a couple of reasons.
- The pivotal issue of who is at fault is an antiquated concept and goes back to “At-Fault” divorces. Determining who was at fault for a divorce affected property rights, spousal support, gave private investigators steady business, and inspired many a TV show. Most agree that having to stay in a relationship based on fault is ridiculous. All U.S. states allow no-fault grounds for divorce and 15 states, including California, don’t even give divorcing spouses an option to cast blame. The simplest solution for broken engagements is to have no-fault ring statutes across the board.
- This is kind of creepy. It is highly unusual that an appeals court would readdress findings of fact rather than looking for errors of law. But that’s what the Massachusetts’ High Court is doing. Normally the appellate accepts the facts as determined and focuses on whether relevant laws were applied correctly. Why, at a time when our judicial resources are overburdened and under-resourced, are the justices playing “he said/she said” over this engagement ring? Do we really want Massachusetts’ top judiciary dissecting in gory detail the former couple’s relationship?
Stay classy
Regardless of how Massachusetts rules, fair play says if one proposes and changes their mind for whatever reason, the receiver should keep the ring. And if the receiver reneges on getting married, they should return the ring. The party in the relationship who breaks the commitment, symbolized by the ring, should lose it. Unfortunately, money buys a lot of things and a lot of money buys a $70K engagement ring from Tiffany & Co. It does not buy you class.
Steven E. Young is a veteran commercial litigation attorney, focusing on intellectual property, entertainment transactional matters, real estate and general business litigation, in State and Federal Courts, State and Federal Appellate Courts, as well as arbitration. And yes, he put a ring on it.
* “With apologies to Gary Lewis and the Playboys from 1965’s This Diamond Ring
*More apologies to Beyonce from 2008’s Single Ladies
