Heiman v. Parrish - 262 Kan. 926, 942 P.2d 631 (1997)

Rule:

Fault is ordinarily not relevant to the question of who should have ownership and possession of an engagement ring after the engagement is broken. Ordinarily, the ring should be returned to the donor, regardless of fault. There may be extremely gross and rare situations where fault might be appropriately considered.

Facts:

Plaintiff donor brought an action to recover an engagement ring after the engagement was terminated. At trial, the parties stipulated that the engagement ring was given in contemplation of marriage. The district court held that the gift was a conditional gift, and since the parties did not perform the condition of marriage, the donor was entitled to the return of the ring. The donee appealed, arguing that the gift of an engagement ring should be gauged by the same standards as for any other inter vivos gift, and that, once delivery and acceptance have occurred, the gift was irrevocable. 

Issue:

1. Was the gift of the engagement ring a conditional gift? 
2. Under the circumstances, was the donor entitled to the return of the ring? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the gift of an engagement ring was a conditional gift. The court noted that the granting of a divorce decree in Kansas, and the division of marital property, were generally thought to be based on a no-fault determination. Further, in domestic relations actions in all but extremely gross and rare situations, financial penalties were not to be imposed by a trial court on a party on the basis of fault. The court concluded that fault regarding the breaking of the engagement was ordinarily not relevant to the question of who should have ownership of an engagement ring after the engagement was broken. Ordinarily, the ring should be returned to the donor, regardless of fault. There may be extremely gross and rare situations where fault might be appropriately considered. The court thus concluded that the district court did not err in awarding the ring to the donor.