« The Daily Memo - 7/10/06 | Main | Our legal representatives, hard at work! »
Buy Me Some Peanuts and Crackers Jacks …
This one definitely should be filed in the “Good to Know” category for all you future adulterers out there. In New York this week a judge has ruled that a woman who broke off her engagement with her fiancé after learning that he was still married can hang on to the $40,000 ring he gave her.
In most situations like these, an engagement ring constitutes consideration in a conditional contract to marry; if the fiancée breaks it off, she has thus broken her side of the bargain and must return the ring. Here, however, because the fiancé, Brian Callahan, was still married, the judge ruled that the contract to marry was void (even though Callahan’s divorce had been approved and only needed 90 days to be finalized) and the 3.4 carat ring thus only amounted to a gift that the fiancée, Dana Clyburn Parker, was entitled to keep. Parker dumped Callahan after learning that he was trolling online for some new ass, which makes all the more sense when you know that the two initially hooked up on Match.com, that Internet bastion for perfect coupledom.
And what’s the lesson to be learned here? Next time you decide to propose to someone while you’re still married, you might want to check the bottom of your cracker-jack box for the engagement ring. It’ll save you around $39,999.01 and you’ll still have a whole box of caramel peanut & popcorn joy after your fiancée up and dumps you.
Comments
Both New York tabloids picked up this weekend on a widely reported case involving a broken engagement and the return of an engagement ring. (Finance Hits Rock Bottom and Fiance is “Gift” Rapped.) For purposes of complete disclosure, I represented the husband-to-be
In this case, the husband-to-be sought to recover a large diamond engagement ring given to his ex-finance, who broke off the engagement. The woman was allowed to keep the valuable ring.
An engagement ring is a gift made in contemplation of marriage. That is, the gift is conditioned upon the marriage actually taking place. If the marriage takes place, the condition is satisfied, and the woman is permitted to keep the ring. Conversely, if the marriage does not occur, the would-be-bride must return the ring.
So why was the woman, who broke off the engagement, allowed to retain the engagement ring? Because, there is an exception to the general rule: if a man is already married, he cannot legally contract to wed. The condition for giving the ring cannot be satisfied. Therefore, the woman is entitled to retain the purported gift made in contemplation of marriage even if the parties never wed.
The recent case was interesting because the man actually had been granted a divorce in Massachusetts, one month before he gave his fiancee the engagement ring. However, unlike New York, where the parties are free to re-marry as soon as the judgment of divorce is entered, in Massachusetts, the divorce does not become absolute until the passage of some time.
Although the man had successfully done everything that had to be done in order to obtain a divorce, that the divorce had been granted and that that all that was required for the divorce to become absolute was the passage of time, the Court ruled that the man was impaired from remarrying. Therefore, he was not entitled to the return of his ring.
The moral- Do not become engaged unless and until you are legally divorced
Posted by DANIEL CLEMENT | July 11, 2006 12:12 AM
Another important moral: Do not troll for other women online when you're supposedly engaged!
Posted by Charlene | July 28, 2006 6:51 AM