1. State the “older rule” regarding a donor’s right to the return of an engagement ring.

2. What is the “modern trend” regarding return of engagement rings or their value to the donor after the breaking of an engagement?

3. Is fault a factor under the Aronow v Silver precedent case referred to by the court?

Dr. Barry Meyer and Robyn Mitnick became engaged on August 9, 1996, at which time Barry gave Robyn a custom-designed engagement ring that he purchased for $19,500. On November 8, 1996, Barry asked Robyn to sign a prenuptial agreement and Robyn refused. The engagement was broken during that meeting, with both Barry and Robyn contending the other party caused the breakup. Robyn did not return the ring, and Barry sued for its return. Robyn filed a countercomplaint, alleging that the ring was an unconditional gift and that because Barry broke the engagement, she was entitled to keep the ring.

JUDICIAL OPINION

FITZGERALD, R. J.… Where a gift of personal property is made with the intent to take effect irrevocably, and is fully executed by unconditional delivery, it is a valid gift inter vivos.… Such a gift is absolute and, once made, cannot be revoked.… A gift, however, may be conditioned on the performance of some act by the donee, and if the condition is not fulfilled the donor may recover the gift.… We find the conditional gift theory particularly appropriate when the contested property is an engagement ring. The inherent symbolism of this gift forecloses the need to establish an express condition that marriage will ensue. Rather, the condition may be implied in fact or imposed by law in order to prevent unjust enrichment.…

Like the courts in other states … we find that engagement rings should be considered, by their very nature, conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage. Once we recognize an engagement ring is a conditional gift, the question still remains: who gets the gift when the condition is not fulfilled? The general principles of law concerning a donor’s right to the return of an engagement ring or its value when the marriage does not occur are contained in a collection of cases from multiple jurisdictions.… Generally, courts have taken two divergent paths. The older one rules that when an engagement has been unjustifiably broken by the donor, the donor shall not recover the ring. However, if the engagement is broken by mutual agreement, or unjustifiably by the donee, the ring should be returned to the donor. The critical inquiry in this fault-based line of cases is who was at “fault” for the termination of the relationship. The other rule, the so-called, “modern trend,” holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke ………………………