Clippard v. Pfefferkorn - 168 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)

Rule:

In cases concerning gifts made in contemplation of marriage, Missouri courts have utilized a fault-based approach when applying the conditional gift rule to determine which party is entitled to the property.

Facts:

Plaintiff and Defendant dated for approximately four or five months in late 2002. On or about December 23, 2002, Plaintiff proposed marriage to Defendant and presented Defendant with a 2.02 carat diamond engagement ring (ring) valued at approximately $ 13,500. Defendant accepted Plaintiff's proposal and the engagement ring. During the weeks following Christmas 2002, the couple experienced difficulties in their relationship. On or about February 8, 2003, approximately six weeks after the couple were engaged, Plaintiff terminated the engagement. Plaintiff attributed his decision not to marry Defendant to a belief that Defendant was not the "right" person and to the influence of his brother, sisters, and parents. In July 2003, Plaintiff filed his petition, which alleged that Plaintiff made a conditional gift of the ring in contemplation of the parties' marriage. Plaintiff requested the trial court to order Defendant to return the ring or, in the alternative, to pay Plaintiff damages in the amount of $ 13,500, the approximate value of the ring, plus court costs and attorney's fees. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendant. The present appeal followed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the Defendant ex-girlfriend be ordered to return the ring to Plaintiff ex-boyfriend? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court first noted that the Defendant ex-girlfriend did not prove all the elements of a valid inter vivos gift, and the evidence established that the ring was a conditional gift made in contemplation of the parties' marriage and not merely a Christmas gift. However, under Missouri's fault-based approach to determining a party's rights to gifts made in contemplation of marriage, the court found that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the Defendant ex-girlfriend. According to the Court, the Defendant ex-girlfriend was entitled to retain the ring because the engagement was terminated by the Plaintiff ex-boyfriend for no fault of the Defendant ex-girlfriend. Furthermore, by terminating the engagement, he breached his promise to marry her. If the Defendant ex-boyfriend had not breached his promise to marry her and the marriage had taken place, there was no question that she would have been able to retain the ring as her own non-marital property.