Albinger v. Harris
48 P.3d 711 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Montana law, an engagement ring is an unconditional, completed gift upon acceptance and is not revocable if the marriage does not occur. Courts will not imply a condition of marriage to such a gift, as doing so would create a judicial exception to the state's gift law and perpetuate gender bias.
Facts:
- In June 1995, Michael A. Albinger and Michelle L. Harris began a troubled three-year relationship.
- On December 14, 1995, Albinger gave Harris a $29,000 diamond ring upon proposing marriage.
- The couple separated and reconciled multiple times; upon each separation, the ring was returned to Albinger, and upon each reconciliation, he re-presented it to Harris.
- On February 23, 1997, during a separation, Albinger assaulted Harris and forcibly removed the ring from her finger.
- The couple later reconciled, and Harris dropped the resulting civil and criminal charges against Albinger.
- In late April 1998, the couple separated for the final time, and Albinger told Harris to 'take the car, the horse, the dog, and the ring and get the hell out.'
- Harris subsequently moved away and refused to return the ring, leading to the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael A. Albinger filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Montana, seeking recovery of the engagement ring and other damages.
- Michelle L. Harris filed a counterclaim for damages from a prior assault and battery.
- The trial court found the ring was a conditional gift and awarded it to Albinger.
- The trial court also denied Albinger's claim for telephone charges and awarded Harris $2,500 in damages for the assault.
- Harris, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling on the engagement ring to the Supreme Court of Montana.
- Albinger, as appellee, cross-appealed the denial of telephone charges and the award of damages to Harris.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an engagement ring a conditional gift subject to an implied condition of marriage, making it revocable by the giver if the engagement is broken?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nelson
No. An engagement ring is an unconditional gift that is complete and irrevocable upon acceptance. Montana's gift statute recognizes a gift as a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, and the only revocable gift is a gift made in view of death. To treat an engagement ring as a conditional gift would require the court to judicially create a new category of gifting, which it declines to do. Furthermore, creating a special exception for engagement rings would perpetuate gender bias, as it would carve out a rule primarily for the benefit of male plaintiffs, counteracting the purpose of 'anti-heart balm' statutes which barred breach of promise to marry actions. The gift was complete upon delivery, and Albinger's own words telling Harris to 'take the ring' confirmed her ownership.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Trieweiler
Yes. An engagement ring is an impliedly conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage and must be returned if that condition fails. The majority's introduction of gender equity principles is unprecedented, irrelevant to the simple property dispute, and was never argued by the parties. The district court's findings—that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage and treated as conditional by the parties' own actions of returning it during previous breakups—were supported by substantial evidence. The overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions follow the conditional gift theory, and Montana's 'anti-heart balm' statute does not bar actions for the recovery of property. The majority's opinion is based on unfounded social commentary and sexual stereotypes rather than established gift law.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the majority rule in the United States, which treats engagement rings as conditional gifts recoverable by the donor if the marriage does not occur. By rejecting the conditional gift theory on grounds of statutory interpretation and constitutional gender equality, the Montana Supreme Court established a strict, bright-line rule. This precedent makes an engagement ring an unconditional, irrevocable gift in Montana, prioritizing the finality of gifts over their symbolic connection to marriage. The holding significantly curtails the ability of donors to recover engagement rings after a broken engagement in the state, regardless of fault, unless an express condition is articulated at the time of the gift.
