Family law attorneys are used to receiving questions about how a couple’s property will be divided in a divorce. When an engagement ends before the wedding can take place, however, there may be questions about who should keep one particular asset: the engagement ring. Social considerations may lead the party who has a right to the engagement ring to make concessions on this point, depending on who called off the wedding – but in many states, engagement rings are considered “conditional gifts”: gifts that are given in the expectation that some condition will be fulfilled, and which must revert to the donor if the condition is not met. To learn more about what happens to the engagement ring when either party has called off the wedding, or to set up a consultation to develop a premarital agreement to address other concerns prior to a planned wedding, call (603) 707-4800 to speak with an experienced New Hampshire family law attorney at Friedman & Bresaw, PLLC.
Who Legally Owns an Engagement Ring if the Wedding Is Called Off?
In most circumstances, the question of who owns a gift is easy to answer: The gift, once given, belongs to the recipient. Gifts with “no strings attached” are known as “absolute” gifts; returning them may be considered polite, under certain circumstances, but it is not a legal obligation.
In a few situations, however, the law makes allowance for what is known as a “conditional” gift. A conditional gift is different from a reward or payment, in that it is not transferred after the fact in exchange for performance; it is also distinct from a bribe, in that it is not offered as an inducement to persuade the recipient to engage in illicit or deceptive activity. An engagement ring may be considered a “conditional gift” (conditional upon the planned marriage taking place), even in states like New Hampshire that do not consider “breach of promise” to marry to be a cause of legal action.
When Do You Have To Give Back an Engagement Ring in New Hampshire?
New Hampshire RSA § 508.11 (2023) prevents either party to an engagement from seeking damages in court because the other called off the wedding. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no legal “rule” in New Hampshire regarding who keeps an engagement ring in the event of a canceled wedding. In the 1950 case of Gikas v. Nicholis, a New Hampshire court held that, while breach of promise is not a cause of legal action, a separate legal principle known as unjust enrichment may still apply.
As Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains, unjust enrichment may prove a useful concept in situations where there is no legally binding contract (as might be the case, for instance, with a premarital agreement), but there is nevertheless a quasi-contractual relationship between the parties. If one party provides some benefit in the reasonable expectation of future conditions that the other party then does not meet, then – depending on the circumstances – it may be possible for the party that provided the benefit to claim unjust enrichment. Notably, however, in Gikas v. Nicholis the court did not hold that the plaintiff (the ostensible groom) was entitled to damages, or even to a return of all personal property bestowed upon the defendant; instead, the defendant was ordered to return the engagement ring or its value. Other items presented by the plaintiff to the defendant were treated as gifts outright, and the court did not order their return.
Do Most Courts Consider an Engagement Ring a Conditional Gift?
Some states consider engagement rings to be gifts outright – that is, without conditions. Once the gift has been made, the giver of course can ask nicely for the recipient to return the item – but, generally speaking, they will not have legal recourse if the recipient refuses. In many states, however, engagement rings are considered to be conditional gifts – they are conditional upon the fulfillment of a condition (that the couple will solemnize their relationship by getting married). In these states, the giver of the engagement ring (usually the groom) may be considered the legal owner of the ring until after the wedding ceremony has taken place and the certificate of marriage has been issued. If the wedding is called off, the engagement ring generally reverts to the person who originally purchased it – regardless of who is responsible for breaking the engagement.
Do I Legally Have To Give My Engagement Ring Back?
While all states allow for the possibility of “no-fault” divorce, only some allow for a no-fault option in breaking off an engagement. In the remaining states, if a wedding is called off and there is a legal dispute over who should keep the engagement ring, then in order to make a determination the court must determine who was “at fault” for breaking the engagement. Depending on the state, this may be the party that called off the wedding, or the courts may consider the party “at-fault” to be the one whose conduct resulted in the cancellation of nuptials – often, but not always, the same person. If you have questions about how the legal concept of fault may impact your rights to keep an engagement ring after you have called off a wedding in New Hampshire, consider speaking with the experienced family law attorneys at Friedman & Bresaw, PLLC.
Which States Consider an Engagement Ring a Conditional Gift?
For the sake of convenience, it is common to divide states into “conditional gift” states and “fault” states when it comes to deciding who is legally entitled to keep an engagement ring. However, it is not necessarily the case that “fault” states disregard entirely the concept of the conditional gift. The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Gikas is notable for its careful articulation of the conditional nature of an engagement ring as a gift, while also applying the logic of fault in determining Nicholis to have been unjustly enriched by keeping the ring – not because the engagement ended, but because she was the one who ended the engagement.
Effect of New Hampshire Case Law on Other States
Courts in other states have taken note; in Alabama (generally regarded as a “fault” state with respect to engagement rings), the Court of Civil Appeals relied partly on the Gikas decision in expounding the appellate court’s reversal of the Baldwin Circuit Court’s judgment in Hattaway v. Coulter (2021). As quoted, the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Gikas v. Nicholis specifies that the “issue” to be decided by the court is whether the person who gives an engagement ring can get the ring back “from the donee who terminates the engagement,” a wording that stops short of addressing whether the donor of an engagement ring can legally demand its return if they themselves are responsible for canceling the wedding plans.
Broken Promise vs. Broken Engagement: The Principle of Unjust Enrichment
The Gikas court held that “retain[ing] the fruit of a broken promise” would constitute an instance of unjust enrichment, suggesting the possibility that if Gikas had been the one to call off the wedding, the court might have found in favor of Nicholis. Interestingly, even though Alabama is widely acknowledged to be a “fault” state, the 2021 decision noted that “We agree [with the New Hampshire Supreme Court] that, when an engagement is terminated, the donor has the right to request the return of the engagement ring and that, when such a request is refused, an unjust enrichment cause of action exists” – a substantially broader construction than that applied in New Hampshire.
Consult With a Family Law Attorney
Even if you have the legal right to keep an engagement ring, or to ask for its return, you may wish to consider the circumstances of your break-up before you decide to pursue a legal remedy. While New Hampshire courts generally have generally found that whichever party called off the wedding must give up the ring, in cases where both parties mutually agree that a wedding is not in their shared best interests the legal rights may be less clear. If the engagement ring is a family heirloom with significant sentimental value for the person who gave it, then applying the conditional gift principle – privately, if not in court – may make more sense. Additionally, there are a number of complexities associated with how the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in Gikas v. Nicholis has been applied in the decades since 1950, so you may wish to consider speaking with a New Hampshire family law attorney who can help you disentangle all of the legal considerations in your particular case. Schedule a free consultation with Friedman & Bresaw, PLLC by calling (603) 707-4800 today.
