The Law Governing Engagement Rings in Florida

Who Retains the Engagement Ring in Florida?

The question of who keeps an engagement ring once an engagement is broken off in Florida is governed by case law. It is not a question specifically addressed in any Florida statutes, although that does not mean that the answer is not bound by strict law principles. For many years, Florida courts have held that an engagement ring is a gift to the other party who receives it. In fact, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, which hears appeals in the Tampa Bay region, previously addressed this question in a case named Selenberg v. Lattimer, 97 So. 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1923). In that case, the Appeals Court held, "In this instance, the evidence is without conflict, that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage, and that its value was equal to the sum declared in the complaint; hence, it is adjudged that the plaintiff (the lady) is the owner thereof and entitled to its immediate possession." (Selenberg, supra, at 170).
However, twelve years ago another Florida Appeals Court in Miami held , in a case named Radecki v. Radecki, that the engagement ring was not a gift at all. The Radecki court held, "The results of a survey of foreign cases, however, show that the courts of ten states hold an engagement ring forfeited if, for any reason, the marriage does not take place." (Radecki v. Radecki, 868 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). In other words, the Radecki court appears to have held that the opposite approach is taken in many other jurisdictions across the country. Because of this, it is likely that the Florida Supreme Court will eventually have to decide whether the rule in Florida should change to be in line with these other jurisdictions.
However, until the Florida Supreme Court weighs in on this important subject, the general Florida rule of thumb seems to hold that the lady will keep her engagement ring and husband-to-be needs to understand that he generally cannot get the ring back if the engagement does not result in marriage.

Engagement Ring – A Gift That Is Conditional

The engagement ring could also fall within a legal theory known as a "conditional gift", depending on the circumstances. In Florida, circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the conduct of the donee in breaking the promise to marry. In other words, the donee may have to give the engagement ring back if the donee breaks the promise to marry the donor. In fact, Florida courts have held that an engagement ring will be returned to the donor where the donor is also the one who repudiated the engagement, but there is a split of authority between Florida state courts as to whether Florida will consider fault in the annulment of a marriage or whether Florida will order the return of the engagement ring based on the action to be in effect a fault-based divorce. Fault refers to wrongdoing. Florida is in the latter camp, however, and thus will order the return of the engagement ring. This rule applies equally to the situation where a wife elopes with another man just before the marriage.

Fault and Engagement Rings

The concept of "fault" has been addressed both before and after the commencement of marriage. The leading case is In re Lampert, 229 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1969). In Lampert, the Florida Supreme Court stated: it is settled law that the forfeiture of an engagement ring by a betrothal who is guilty of an act of unchastity subsequent to the engagement is the general rule. The cause for the dissolution of the engagement must rest in the fault of the betrothed whether it be an act of unchastity, violation of a promise or undertaking, or concealment of facts affecting the prospective marital status. The test is whether the guilt or misconduct of the donee is the proximate cause of the donor’s rescinding of the gift and refusing to proceed further with the marriage. There seems to be a split of authority as to whether the application of the rule makes the extent of the donee’s fault relevant, and we think that it does not. The question is whether the fault in canceled engagement is that of one or the other party, not to what extent either party is guilty. Fault may go to the question of whether damages should be awarded for breach of promise to marry, but we believe the rule does not go so far. Specifically, in Rosinberg v. Rosinberg, the Florida Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to find that the reason for the dissolution of the engagement was the fault of the donee in making misrepresentations and omissions with regard to his financial situation. The appeals court indicated that such conduct was sufficient to justify the donee’s retention of the engagement ring. In Zabriskie v. Zabriskie, the appellate court found that a civil action adjudicating the liability of one of the parties for the breaking of an engagement would not estop the other party from disputing the like issue in a subsequent divorce suit. A recent case, Biais v. Biais, ruled that premarital misconduct e.g. incompatibility, alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abuse, financial irresponsibility, and/or felonious conduct can be considered before and after marriage when determining whether to grant a divorce. However, the court refused to apply the Lampert exception, finding that such conduct would require proving a no-fault divorce. The Authors disagrees with this position, and submits that this position was "incorrect" because there is no legal authority for the position that a no-fault divorce statute abrogates the Lampert exception.

Court Cases Regarding Engagement Rings in Florida

Florida courts have had their share of disputes over engagement rings. In fact, in 1997, the Florida Supreme Court cited a pivotal New York ruling in a case that helped Florida provide more clarification over the legal thinking surrounding engagement rings.
In lieu of an explicit law, Florida has relied on case history to determine what happens when an engagement ring is the subject of a dispute. Most of the time, this case law has sided with the receivers of the ring once the actual marriage ceremony has taken place; however, they are not an absolute guarantee of outcome. Courts have been known to look at the following things: One of the more well-known cases in which the appellate court ruled over an engagement ring was Seitz v. Fuchs in 1997. In this case, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with New York’s original ruling concerning fault in ring giving. When it comes to state rulings on engagement rings, Seitz v. Fuchs is the state’s polestar case, so most rings fall under the same standard if subjected to a dispute. In this case, the court ruled that an engagement ring is like an offer, and the giving is an acceptance of the terms. If the terms are not kept to, such as a marriage never completed , there is no meeting of the minds to support performance of the agreement. With this precedent set, Florida courts have since decided the fault of the donee before leaving them responsible for damages.
However, the Seitz v. Fuchs case did not involve a third party, as most of Florida’s rulings over engagement rings do. The recipient of the engagement ring bought it with the marriage intention, and now that the marriage cannot be completed, there is no right to keep the engagement ring from a third party. While each case can be looked at with a "facts and circumstances" review, it’s clear that things can drastically change in an engagement ring dispute based on these rulings. In Sandford v. Hudson, the state court looked at a conflict involving a couple who decided to have a baby together, which led to the lady deciding to leave the man. The woman then kept the ring since the marriage ceremony was never finalized. After the man obtained a default divorce judgment, he went after the ring (the divorce judgment stated that the couple Marcia and Rodney were married). The appellate court entered a ruling that the wife must return the ring, but it did leave open the possibility that she could use the ring to satisfy any child support payments.

Consultation With Legal Counsel Regarding Engagement Rings

Engagement ring laws in Florida can be complex and can lead to disputes between parties. If you are a member of the army or other uniformed service and are involved in an engagement ring dispute you should be aware that your rights may differ from a civilian. Unmarried parties have no independent claim to ownership of property acquired during the engagement as can be proven as a gift.
Although in Florida an engagement ring is considered a gift in contemplation of marriage the question of what happens to the engagement ring if the parties do not marry is increasingly common. The general case law is that in Florida gifts made in contemplation of marriage that are not revoked before the contemplated marriage takes place will be construed as inter vivos gifts. If however the marriage does not take place an unconditional gift has not been created. In this situation the issue becomes whether the donor revoked the gift. When an engagement ring is given it is often accompanied with a receipt and a condition of marriage. Because the engagement ring is in the possession of the donee this can create a presumption of privacy of the engagement ring during the marriage. In the absence of a receipt that designates the ring as an engagement ring, Florida courts find that it is damaged by the marriage.
Furthermore, Florida courts seem to have established three factors for setting aside an engagement ring to determine whether a party is entitled to damages when the marriage does not take place. These are:

• (1) whether the engagement ring was given as a conditional gift or an unconditional gift;
• (2) whether the donor of the engagement ring had an intent that the recipient of the gift keep the engagement ring if the marriage did not take place; and
• (3) whether the donor of the engagement ring revoked the gift prior to the marriage taking place.

Given the complexities of these laws, seeking legal advice concerning the disposition of an engagement ring may benefit both parties. You may want to consider consulting with a lawyer specializing in family law in early stages of your dispute, particularly if you have been served with a lawsuit, been threatened with a lawsuit or expect one to be filed. There are several family law attorneys in Orlando with extensive experience in probate and real estate.

Preventing Litigation Concerning Engagement Rings

While understanding the general principles behind Florida’s engagement ring laws is useful, it is even more important to know what you can do to prevent legal disputes for engagement rings in Florida. What are the most significant pre-emptive measures engaged couples can take to prevent such disputes? Legal experts suggest that the best approach is for engaged couples to hammer out a clear agreement regarding the ownership of the engagement ring. This is usually done with a formal contract or a right of ownership agreement that is signed by both parties before the ring is exchanged. In some cases , it can also be done with a statement indicating that the ring is the property of one spouse and will not be part of the marital assets in the event of a divorce. Such an agreement is formally called a "gift viatorum" in legal circles, meaning, "a gift made in consideration of marriage." Names aside, this formal agreement effectively makes it clear that the ring is a gift for the express purpose of an engagement. From a family law perspective, the successful use of such agreements hinges on the fact that the recipient will sign the agreement without coercion of any kind and that the agreement clearly states that the ring is a gift and that the gift will not transform into a marital asset in the event of a divorce.