GETTING BACK ENGAGEMENT RINGS - A BREAK UP STORY

So when there is a break up ad no marriage, many things can go awry. Here is an interesting case (although from 4 years ago is one of the more recent decisions) where the question was - is it an engagement ring or not. Torres v. Lopez, 2014 NY Slip Op 51494 - NY: Dist. Court, Nassau County, 1st Dist. 2014:

"In Lipton v. Lipton, 134 Misc 2d 1076, 514 NYS2d 158 (Sup Ct, NY Cty), the court stated that the intention of the parties whether an inter vivos gift is conditional or absolute is to be determined based from the express declaration of the parties or from the circumstances:

All the elements of an inter vivos gift were satisfied. (See In re Estate of Szabo, 10 NY2d 94, 98 217 NYS2d 593, 176 NE2d 395). The ring was delivered and accepted. Whether in a given instance the gift is conditional or absolute is an ordinary question of intention to be determined by an express declaration in the making of the gift or from the circumstances. 38 C.J.S Gifts § 61.

In Glachman v. Perlen, 159 AD2d 553, 552 NYS2d 418 (2nd Dept 1990), the Second Department held issues of fact existed on whether the gifts were in contemplation of marriage:

Although the plaintiff may maintain a cause of action to recover gifts he gave to the defendant solely in contemplation of their marriage (see, Civil Rights Law § 80-b, see also, Gaden v. Gaden, 29 NY2d 80, 323 NYS2d 955, 272 NE2d 471), the affidavits submitted by the parties regarding the circumstances under which the alleged gifts were given raise triable issues of fact precluding the awarding of summary judgment.

In DeFina v. Scott, 195 Misc 2d 75, 755 NYS2d 587 (Supt Ct, NY Cty 2003), the court states the applicable law in New York concerning the recovery of a ring:

The court starts with application of the traditional principle of New York law holding that an engagement ring is the property of the male donor when an engagement is terminated (see, Gagliardo v. Clemente, 180 AD2d 551, 580 NYS2d 278 [1st Dept 1992]; 11 NY Prac New York Law of Domestic Relations § 4:4, Courtship: Engagement Rings [2002], "Even prior to the enactment of the anti-heart balm legislation," cases held that "[t]he donee of the ring receives, at the time of the gift, only the right of possession. Firm ownership passes only upon the performance of the mar-riage").

This rule applies only to a ring given as an engagement ring (id., "If there were reasons other than a contemplated marriage why the gift was given, such as part of a birthday or holiday celebration, the ring may not be subject to return. Where there is a genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which the ring was given, a trial is necessary to determine the facts").

See also Poupis v. Brown, 90 AD3d 881, 935 NYS2d 127 (4th Dept 2009) holding issues of fact existed as to whether the ring and the transfer of the interest in the West Islip property were given solely in contemplation of marriage.

This court finds that while there is a very close issue of fact, the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden by preponderance of the evidence that the ring was solely given to defendant in contemplation of marriage.

Based upon a review of the trial transcript and evidence, this court holds that the ring was given as a gift and not in contemplation of marriage. The court credits the defendant's testimony that the ring was a gift for her giving the plaintiff a son and being a good mother. The invoice has no mention of the ring being an engagement ring. Plaintiff and defendant referred to each other as husband and wife prior to the ring being given as a gift. A domestic partnership already existed prior to the date the ring was given as a gift. The parties had a prior history of exchanging gifts with each other.

The court further credits defendant's testimony that she contributed $1,000 down for the diamond and gave $4,500 from her tax return.

The evidence further shows that no engagement announcement was sent out and no wedding venue had been booked.

Based upon the foregoing the plaintiff gave the ring to defendant as a gift and not in contemplation of marriage. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover a completed gift. Defendant is entitled to retain ownership of the ring."