The article below was written by Vicki L. Shemin, J.D., LICSW, ACSW and published in Citybizlist on January 25, 2021
Lest you think that the proprieties and perplexities surrounding broken engagements are a modern phenomenon, we need only look back to the 15th century.
It is said that in 1477, Archduke Maximillian of Austria commissioned the very first diamond engagement ring on record for his betrothed, Mary of Burgundy, thus setting a penchant for diamond engagement rings among the higher echelons of European society.
With that stage set, the marketing genius of DeBeers was sure to follow. And, nowadays, it seems that engagements have become all about the diamond ring.
But fast forward a bit and then show me an announcement of a broken engagement. The next exclamation is inevitably: “Did she give back the ring?” (Apologies for falling into the typical gender trap.)
Did she? Should she? With some statistics estimating that a quarter of a million engagements do not end in marriage, this is a significant fiscal and sociological question with both legal and moral implications.
As with all things marital, the answer to what a court is likely to do when it comes to “who gets to keep the ring” depends on varying state laws (by which I do not mean to imply that the law is always as clear as a princess cut).
Typically, these cases are analyzed as to whether the intent was to give the ring as a gift, whether the ring was actually given as a gift, and whether the donee accepted the ring as a gift. But wait…there’s more. A conditional promise to marry is also attached. More to the point, the majority of states have taken the view that if the affianced does not perform on the promise to marry, then the ring must be returned as that token was itself the consideration for the promise to say “I do.”
But that analysis would be too simple. Some states – like Massachusetts – take fault into consideration and consider who broke off the engagement. After satisfying that inquiry, the one who broke off the engagement does not get the ring. While that might appear to be an elegantly simple resolution, anyone who knows human nature understands that the person who actually broke off the engagement may well have been provoked to do so, or, may have done so because their louse spouse-not-to-be was really at fault.
But, back to elegantly simple solutions. Consider Montana! That state takes an approach as clear as a gem. The engagement ring is deemed to be an unconditional gift that is kept by the recipient – despite whether the marriage ever happens and despite who pulled the plug on the engagement.
In case you are wondering, is the law more settled when it comes to wedding bands or engagement rings after the marriage? I think not. While some would strenuously argue that wedding rings are marital property subject to division in the event of divorce, others would counterpunch they are completed gifts because any preconditions attached to the gift have been met (i.e., the wedding itself sealed the deal).
Are there any escape clauses? A least two worth noting. First, if an engagement ring is given on a holiday or birthday, some say that the argument is strengthened that the ring was merely a completed gift irrespective of whether the marriage goes forward or not because the ring is less attached to the promise of marriage and relates more to the occasion of the special date on which it was given. So, let that be a cautionary tale for those who are contemplating a Valentine’s Day, Christmas, or New Year’s proposal. Second, if the engagement ring is a family heirloom, this should be a no-brainer dictating that it should be returned to the donor.
So, what’s the law about the propriety of who gets to keep the ring? Indeed, what’s fair in this facet of “all’s fair in love and war”?
Well, as all things in the law, the answer is what law students are taught on their first day of law school: “it depends.”
And, even at that, are we talking about human laws, or, underlying moral codes (as the latter cannot be legislated)?
Vicki L. Shemin, J.D., LICSW, ACSW, a divorce lawyer and clinical social worker, is a partner at Fields and Dennis LLP in Wellesley. She can be reached at 781.489.6776 or VShemin@FieldsDennis.com.
Jonathan Fields, a family-law attorney and divorce mediator with Fields and Dennis LLP in Wellesley, Mass., says he also is getting requests from younger clients to address social media in prenups to ensure that one spouse can’t write nasty things about the other in the event they break up. He says he tries to discourage such clauses because he’s concerned it could run into First Amendment issues, but if clients insist, he includes it using broad language related to not discussing each other negatively, or to their children, for example.
“Five hours of time for a five-minute hearing has never seemed so wasteful. With the experience of remote hearings, will the courts realize that, in 2021 and beyond, we cannot go back to the old way of doing things?”
“In 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine’s impact on the workforce will dominate the legal landscape. Employers will grapple with vaccine resistance, some due to disability, some due to religious beliefs, some due to fear, and some due to deep-seated distrust of governmental vaccination programs ( i.e., the Tuskegee Study). Health officials and employers alike must establish trust through compliance with federal and state public health initiatives and anti-discrimination guidelines.”
“Race and criminal justice. Will the police reform legislation emerging on Beacon Hill actually deliver on the promise to make police officers and departments accountable to the public — especially in communities of color? And will the Legislature, the courts and the legal profession step up to meet the challenge presented by the Harvard Law School study, commissioned by Chief Justice Gants, that so vividly documented profound racial inequality in our criminal justice system?”
“How the legal system conducts jury trials and deals with the overall backlog are going to be the most pressing legal questions in the coming year. There are hundreds of pending cases, and figuring out how we are going to safely and constitutionally handle them in a post-COVID society is something we are all focused on. We need to make sure that those who have the least are not left behind as we try to rebuild our legal system.”
“Evictions and foreclosures, unless there is an extended moratorium. In anticipation, I’m rewriting §10:2 ‘Foreclosure Defense’ with a subsection on eviction defense, for 28 Mass. Practice: Real Estate Law, of which I’m the current author. As in the 1930s’ Great Depression, we may see mass civil disobedience to block foreclosure auctions and evictions, bankruptcies of residential and commercial landlords, and bank failures. Hunger and desperation may lead to increased crime, especially theft of food.”
“Employers will likely face complex and vexing issues on whether to require employees to take the COVID vaccines. So far there are not government requirements, but that may change as the vaccines prove effective. Presently, the issue of mandatory vaccinations raises the issue of ADA strictures as well as Title VII religious issues. The EEOC just issued guidelines yesterday, but not requirements. Stay tuned!”
“Immigration law dominates the legal landscape in 2021. The incoming administration will be under significant pressure to undo the most harmful policies of the Trump administration. Changes in the immigration courts, asylum laws, green card applications, as well as restoration of DACA and Temporary Protected Status will occupy much of the administration’s first days. The Biden administration faces a gargantuan task, and because of that immigration law will be a continuing hot topic in 2021.”
Fields and Dennis LLP is proud to announce that we have been ranked as one of Boston’s Top Tier Family Law Firms in US News & World Report’s Best Lawyers Best Law Firms 2021 Edition. The US News & World Report rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process and is one of the most trusted and relied upon guides to legal excellence. We are honored to receive this ranking.
