Rules of Engagement :
Understanding Engagement Ring Ownership Issues in Florida
by Bianca N . Manos , Esq . Icard , Merrill , Cullis , Timm , Furen & Ginsburg , P . A .
We are currently nearing the end of proposal season , which usually spans from November through February , according to popular websites like The Knot and Wedding Wire . As a family law attorney , this is usually the time period when I receive the most calls from clients inquiring about prenuptial agreements and Florida ’ s stance on engagement ring ownership in the unfortunate event the wedding is called off .
Engagement rings hold significant sentimental and often financial value , representing the promise of marriage . Unfortunately , sometimes weddings are called off for various reasons and it ’ s important for family law and civil litigation attorneys to understand how Florida courts could treat questions surrounding the ownership of the engagement ring in order to advise their clients on such an emotionally charged issue .
So who gets the engagement ring if the wedding is called off ? In Florida , there is no specific statute governing engagement ring ownership before a couple marries , and the legal principles on engagement ring ownership are solely based on established case law and legal precedents . Courts in Florida have generally viewed engagement rings as conditional gifts . A conditional gift is one in which there is an agreement or implied understanding that a gift is given subject to a condition , and the completion of that condition is required before the recipient of the gift is vested with full ownership interest of the gift . An engagement ring is usually interpreted as representing an agreement or understanding between the parties that ownership of the ring is contingent on the prospect , or condition , that the couple will eventually marry . Therefore , if the engagement is called off and the marriage does not occur , then the condition required for the recipient to have a vested ownership interest in the ring has not been met , and Florida courts may order the return of the engagement ring to the giver of the ring .
Clients may ask whether it matters who calls off the engagement or whether the issue of fault affects whether a court would order the return of an engagement ring . The answer , as usual , is “ it depends !” Typically , if the engagement is terminated by the recipient or by mutual agreement of the parties , the giver may be entitled to recovery of the ring . Florida follows a “ no-fault ” principle in dissolution of marriage cases , which means that there is no legal significance or weight given to who is at fault for a couple breaking up . However , because the issue of ring ownership before a marriage occurs is more of a property ownership issue , if one party can prove that the other was at fault for the relationship ’ s termination , it could influence a court ’ s decision regarding the ring ’ s ownership . There is little case law to guide this issue , but courts could determine , as some courts in other states have , that if the giver of the ring is the one who called off the engagement , the recipient may be permitted to keep the ring . This principle aligns with the idea that the ring was a gift given on the condition of marriage , and if the giver reneges on that condition , the recipient could retain possession because the understanding was breached through no fault of their own .
But what if the ring is a family heirloom ? If a court were to strictly adhere to the principles described above , then a judge could determine that the recipient is entitled to keep the ring if the giver terminated the engagement , despite the ring ’ s sentimental value to the giver . What ’ s important to understand and convey to clients is that because there is such little guidance on this issue , judges are given wide discretion on the matter and should consider the unique circumstances of each case . While there are general principles and legal precedents on conditional gift-giving that judges will likely follow , specific nuances can sway the final determination and the outcome of these disputes on a case-bycase basis .
18 | THE DOCKET - FEBRUARY 2024