Whose Ring is it if the answer is “I don’t”?

 In 1989, we were introduced to the movie, “When Harry Met Sally”.  Aside from the iconic dinner scene; Harry, played by Billy Crystal, presented the second best line of the theatric performance.  Harry’s swoon-worthy line: “When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.”  Unfortunately, the perfect engagement doesn’t always have a fairytale ending.  Remember, ten years later Maggie, played by Julia Roberts in the Runaway Bride left multiple fiancés at the altar?

It has long been tradition for the potential groom to present to the potential bride a ring when asking for her hand in marriage. Paris and New York are storybook settings.  Hot Air Balloons can deliver the most scenic venues.  Baseball Stadiums are always exciting to have tens of thousands of strangers watching the response.  However, even the most perfect marriage proposals are not always strong enough to seal the deal resulting in the perfect union between two couples.

So what happens to the engagement ring when the engaged couples can make it down the aisle and someone says, “I don’t”?  An engagement ring is a gift and the law requires three elements to constitute an irrevocable gift:

1.       Intent.  The giver’s intent to give the item as a gift;

2.       Delivery. The giver’s actual giving of the gift to the receiver; and

3.       Acceptance. Affirmative acceptance of the gift by the receiver.

If the above three elements are met, a gift is usually considered irrevocable and the gift giver is not entitled to reclaim the item.  However, the rules for engagement rings are often slightly different. In Texas, the courts apply the Conditional Gift Rule. A conditional gift is subject to / dependent on a specific condition and it CAN be revoked if the condition(s) attached to the gift are not fulfilled. Likewise, the conditional gift CANNOT be revoked if the condition(s) attached to the gift are fulfilled. In the case of the engagement ring, the condition would be the act of marriage, not simply accepting the ring and agreeing to marry.

Texas courts take it one step further and factor in who is “at fault” in calling off the engagement. “Texas courts have held that the rule operates to require that the ring be returned to the donor if the donee is at fault in terminating the engagement”. Curtis v. Anderson, 106 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tex. Ct. App. – Austin 2003). So, if the receiver is at fault, then she must return the ring. But if the giver is at fault, then he does not get the ring back and the receiver is entitled to keep it.

Finding who is “at fault” will be the big question.  In Curtis v. Anderson, the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin held that the ring giver was at fault when he decided to end the engagement because his fiancée had “some sexual hang-ups” and “some previous general issues with men, and she also had a very volatile temper”. Id. at 252. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the receiver and stated that “Texas courts, including this Court, have applied the fault-based conditional-gift rule when a donee breaks the engagement. We believe the same rule should apply when the donor defaults. We hold that absent a written agreement a donor is not entitled to the return of an engagement ring if he terminates the engagement.” Id. at 256.

With that being said, an exception may apply in situations involving infidelity or fraud. In the case of infidelity, it would not be a defense for a cheating fiancé/fiancée to claim that the other party is “at fault” for breaking off the engagement when the cheating was discovered. A court may consider this to be a reasonable justification for calling off the wedding.

Proper planning before marriage through a prenuptial agreement can help to avoid fights over the engagement ring later. Where the ring is a family heirloom of the one who popped the question, a prenuptial agreement can provide for the return of the ring to the family in the event the marriage does not last. While it may seem less than ideal to be asking for the ring back before the wedding has even taken place, doing so is better than living with the regret of not having planned ahead.  Every case is unique and Texas courts analyze each individual case based on the specific facts and circumstances.

Having an attorney with the resources and knowledge to give you the best representation is vital to your interest and the interest of your family.  You also want to make sure they will exhaust all avenues and be willing to research, pursue and implement strategies to provide the best possible outcome.

Rob McAngus, Partner with Verner Brumley Parker, P.C., is Board Certified in family Law and his practice is devoted primarily to family law, including high conflict divorce, custody cases, and complex property issues. In addition to being selected on the Board of Directors for the Family Law Section of the Dallas Bar Association; he values your priorities as a parent and works with you to achieve the goals that will help transition your family to a new normal.  As both an adopted child and a member of a blended family, Rob can provide a unique perspective in the practice of family law.

Rob has been recognized in Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in 2016 through 2020, and recently The National Advocates recognized Rob as one of the Top 40 Under 40.  He can be reached by calling 214.526.5234 or email at rmcangus@vernerbrumley.com.  Mr. McAngus received his bachelor’s degree cum laude and master’s degree from Baylor University and graduated cum laude from the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University.