When emotions are running high and a man loves a woman he wants to pop that special question – will you marry me? Almost always there is a beautiful diamond ring involved, but what happens if the marriage doesn’t happen? Does the man get the ring back or does the woman get to keep it? And what happens in the case of same-sex couples? Do pre-nups offer protection? If there is a dispute, which court hears the matter?
CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW
In California we turn to a law dating back to 1939 which specifically addresses engagement rings and other gifts in contemplation of marriage – Civil Code section 1590; it states:
Where either party to a contemplated marriage in this State makes a gift of money or property to the other on the basis or assumption that the marriage will take place, in the event that the donee refuses to enter into the marriage as contemplated or that it is given up by mutual consent, the donor may recover such gift or such part of its value as may, under all of the circ*mstances of the case, be found by a court or jury to be just.
In this case the “donor” is the person (i.e., the man) giving the engagement ring, and the “donee” is the person (i.e., the woman) receiving it. A gift in contemplation of marriage can be revoked, unlike other gifts. Thus, California law is very clear on what happens to the ring – if the woman calls off the wedding, it goes back to the man. Also, if both parties agree that the wedding is off then the man gets the ring back.
This California law has wide ranging impact for property given in contemplation of marriage. In an important case on the subject, Shaw v. Shaw (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 159, a man and woman lived together for four years. He placed her name on real property because he relied on her promise that she would marry him when her divorce was final. The couple separated before marrying and the woman eventually married another. The court awarded all property back to the man because she failed to marry him. This has an impact on our society today because of the number of couples living together before marriage.
WHAT IF THE MAN CALLS THE MARRIAGE OFF?
It seems to be implied by the law that the man would not receive the ring back because he called the marriage off. This is the assessment of a rather old case, which is still good law, holding that: “the clear meaning of the quoted statute is that the donee (i.e., the woman) of an engagement ring is entitled to retain possession thereof when the marriage contract is breached by the donor (i.e., the man) without any fault on donee’s part.” Simonian v. Donoian (1950) 96 C.A.2d 259.
HOW CAN A PRE-NUP HELP?
We often hear in celebrity divorce cases how the engagement ring is frequently referenced in a pre-nup and that it goes back to the woman, as in the divorce case of Khloe Kardashian where she was able to keep her one million dollar engagement ring.See Hollywood Life by Bonnie Fuller(Dec. 13, 2013)http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/12/13/khloe-kardashian-prenup-lamar-odom-divorce-split. But is it really necessary to put it in the pre-nup?
The answer is: not really. Once the parties are legally married, then the conditions of California law regarding giving the ring back do not apply. Civil Code section 1590 deals with what happens if a marriage is called off. If there is a marriage, then the terms of giving the ring are satisfied, and it becomes the sole property of the woman and it is not necessary for her return it to the man. However, it is always the best practice in a pre-nup to include who owns all the property, so as to make it complete and without any ambiguity. Such as in the case of a million dollar ring – who wants to make that mistake?
It may also be useful to have language in a pre-nup that the woman should not get to keep a costly ring, should certain things happen in a marriage. For example, a man could ask that an expensive million dollar engagement ring go back to him should the woman be found to be unfaithful during the marriage.
WHAT IF HE CHEATS ON ME BEFORE WE ARE MARRIED?
The parties can enter into a contract before marriage, such as a pre-marriage agreement between the prospective spouses that would specifically be made enforceable before a marriage. Such a scenario might cover if the man is unfaithful, then the woman should be able to keep the engagement ring, even if she calls off the marriage before they are legally married because she finds out that he has been unfaithful to her.
Without this type of protection under California law, there is no clear authority that states that a woman who finds a man to be unfaithful and calls off the marriage would be entitled to keep the ring. Her only protection is if it is in a pre-marriage agreement in writing. Of course, this would take all the romance out of the moment; but from a legal standpoint this would be the only way to clearly allow a woman to keep the ring based on the bad-faith conduct of the man during the engagement period if she calls off the marriage.
WHAT IF THE ENGAGEMENT RING IS GIVEN ON A SPECIAL DAY?
Many couples want to enhance the romance by popping that question on a special day – such as a birthday, a holiday, Christmas, New Year’s Eve, or the most romantic holiday of all – Valentine’s Day.
California law makes a special exception to the general law surrounding gifts in Civil Code section 1590: if the gift is given in contemplation of marriage, it must be returned in certain cases if there is no wedding. However, if the engagement ring is given as a gift for a special day such as a birthday, or Christmas, or even Valentine’s Day, then there becomes a question if it was truly an engagement ring or a gift. If the engagement ring is given as a gift and the woman calls it off or both parties call it off, then she would not have to give the ring back if it was a gift.
In another case a man gave a woman an engagement ring and on the same day his mother gave the woman a diamond watch. On the surface, it would appear that both gifts were engagement gifts for the woman to marry the man.Simonian v. DonoianÂ(1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 259, 262. The facts fromSimonianstate that right after the man gave her the engagement ring, his mother pulled a wrist watch set with diamonds and said “This is from dad and I.” When the woman called the marriage off, she had to give the ring back, but she got to keep the watch because it was considered a gift from the parents.
As someone deeply immersed in family law and legal intricacies, it's crucial to dissect the complexities surrounding the fate of engagement rings when a marriage doesn't materialize. Let's delve into the realm of California law and its meticulous provisions.
The cornerstone of this discussion lies in Civil Code section 1590, a legal relic dating back to 1939, specifically addressing gifts in contemplation of marriage. This statute unequivocally outlines the fate of engagement rings in the event of a canceled marriage. The donor, often the man presenting the ring, reserves the right to reclaim the gift or a portion of its value if the donee, typically the woman receiving the ring, refuses to marry or if both parties mutually agree to call off the wedding.
This legal framework has far-reaching implications beyond engagement rings, as exemplified in the case of Shaw v. Shaw (1964), where property rights were awarded based on unfulfilled marriage promises. This precedent continues to resonate in contemporary society, particularly given the prevalence of couples cohabitating before marriage.
Crucially, the law appears to favor the man if the woman calls off the wedding, ensuring the return of the engagement ring. However, if the man initiates the cancellation without any fault on the woman's part, legal precedent, such as Simonian v. Donoian (1950), suggests that the woman is entitled to retain the ring.
The role of pre-nuptial agreements, often spotlighted in celebrity divorces, adds another layer to this legal tapestry. While Civil Code section 1590 governs situations where marriage plans are abandoned, once legally married, the conditions for ring return no longer apply. Nonetheless, including clear provisions in a pre-nup regarding ownership of the engagement ring is advisable to avoid ambiguity, as demonstrated in the case of Khloe Kardashian's million-dollar ring.
Moreover, pre-nuptial agreements can extend beyond the mere ownership of the ring. They may stipulate conditions under which the woman might not retain the ring, such as infidelity during the marriage. This proactive legal approach safeguards against uncertainties and establishes clear guidelines for various scenarios that may unfold in the course of a marriage.
Intriguingly, the timing and nature of the gift also play a role in determining its fate. Civil Code section 1590 carves out a special exception for gifts given on specific occasions, such as birthdays or holidays. If the engagement ring is presented as a gift on such a special day, it may be exempt from the legal provisions requiring its return in the absence of a wedding.
In the labyrinth of engagement ring disputes, legal nuances and precedents intertwine, forming a complex web that demands careful consideration. Understanding these intricacies becomes paramount for individuals navigating the legal landscape of failed engagements in California.
