Aronow v. Silver
538 A.2d 851, 223 N.J. Super. 344 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an engagement to marry is broken, any gifts made in contemplation of marriage, such as an engagement ring or jointly purchased property intended as a marital home, are considered conditional gifts and must be returned to the donor, regardless of who is at fault for terminating the engagement.
Facts:
- Philip Aronow and Elizabeth Silver were engaged to be married, but their relationship was characterized as stormy, experiencing problems between themselves and their relatives.
- On three separate occasions, Elizabeth cancelled the engagement and returned the engagement ring, only to later change her mind.
- A few days before their scheduled marriage ceremony, the engagement was irretrievably broken, with each party blaming the other.
- During their engagement, Philip gave Elizabeth an engagement ring.
- Philip and Elizabeth purchased a condominium together, taking title in both names, with the intention for it to be their future marital home; Philip moved into the property one day before the engagement broke.
- Philip used his own money to purchase stock with the understanding that the certificate would be placed in joint names, but the broker issued it in Elizabeth's name only.
- After the engagement was broken, Elizabeth sold the stock that was in her name only without Philip's knowledge and kept the proceeds.
- Robert and Cybil Silver, Elizabeth's parents, incurred various wedding expenses, for which they sought reimbursement from Philip.
Procedural Posture:
- Philip Aronow initiated a lawsuit as plaintiff against Elizabeth Silver, defendant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
- Robert Silver and Cybil Silver, Elizabeth's parents, intervened in the action as third-party plaintiffs against Philip Aronow, seeking reimbursement for wedding expenses.
- The case proceeded to a trial of the liability issues in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'no-fault' rule apply to the return of engagement rings and other gifts made in contemplation of marriage when an engagement is broken, requiring their return to the donor regardless of who caused the breakup?
Opinions:
Majority - Haines, A.J.S.C.
Yes, the 'no-fault' rule applies to the return of engagement rings and other gifts made in contemplation of marriage, requiring their return to the donor regardless of who caused the breakup. The court found the traditional 'fault' rule, which assigns blame for a broken engagement, to be sexist, archaic, and practically impossible to apply, aligning its reasoning with modern principles of gender equality and New Jersey's no-fault divorce statute. An engagement ring is inherently a conditional gift, with the implicit condition being the occurrence of the marriage; if the marriage does not happen, the condition is unfulfilled, and the ring must be returned to the donor. This 'no-fault' conditional gift principle extends to other significant gifts made in anticipation of marriage, such as the jointly purchased condominium intended as their marital home and the stock bought with Philip's money. Based on the evidence, the court concluded Elizabeth made no contribution to the condominium's purchase price and thus the property equitably belongs to Philip, provided he assumes and removes Elizabeth's liability on the mortgage. Regarding the stock, the stock purchased by Philip but held solely in Elizabeth's name must be returned to Philip, and any previously jointly-held stock donated by Elizabeth should be transferred back to her. Finally, the claim by Elizabeth's parents, Robert and Cybil Silver, for reimbursement of wedding expenses was denied because they failed to present a supportable legal theory or evidence of any agreement making Philip liable.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in New Jersey by definitively adopting a 'no-fault' rule for the return of engagement gifts, departing from the historical fault-based approach. The court's reasoning aligns the law concerning broken engagements with modern family law principles, particularly the no-fault divorce statute, emphasizing gender equality and acknowledging the inherent difficulty in assigning blame in the dissolution of intimate relationships. This decision simplifies future litigation over such gifts, removing intrusive inquiries into personal relationship dynamics and focusing solely on whether the condition of marriage was met, thereby promoting predictability and fairness in these disputes.
