Lexplug logoLexplug

Gill v. Shively

District Court of Appeal of Florida
320 So.2d 415 (1975)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

An engagement ring is a gift impliedly conditioned upon the consummation of marriage; if the engagement is terminated by the donee or by mutual consent, the donor is entitled to recover the ring.


Facts:

  • Gill gave Shively a diamond engagement ring worth approximately $3,620.42.
  • The ring was given in contemplation of and conditioned upon the parties getting married.
  • Shively informed Gill that she would not marry him because she was not ready for marriage.
  • Shively removed a painting and a man's three-speed bicycle from Gill's home without his consent.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gill filed a verified complaint in replevin against Shively in the trial court.
  • The trial court issued an order to show cause and held a hearing to determine possession.
  • The trial court dismissed Gill's complaint with prejudice, ruling he had no enforceable legal right to the items.
  • Gill appealed the judgment of dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida.

Locked

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 a donor state a valid cause of action for the recovery of an engagement ring and other personal property when the donee terminates the engagement and retains the items?


Opinions:

Majority - Downey

Yes, a donor is entitled to the return of an engagement ring because it is a conditional gift, and is entitled to other property taken without consent. The court reasoned that while this was a case of first impression in Florida, the weight of authority in other jurisdictions treats engagement rings not as absolute gifts, but as gifts conditioned on the marriage occurring. Consequently, if the donee breaks the engagement, the ring must be returned. The court further clarified that state 'Heart Balm' statutes, which bar lawsuits for breach of promise to marry, do not bar lawsuits for the restitution of specific property. Regarding the bicycle and painting, the court found the plaintiff had a valid claim because he alleged they were taken without consent, not given as gifts.



Analysis:

This decision aligns Florida with the majority of jurisdictions regarding the legal status of engagement rings. By defining an engagement ring as a conditional gift rather than an absolute one, the court creates a clear precedent that prevents unjust enrichment when an engagement is broken by the recipient. The ruling also importantly distinguishes between actions for damages resulting from a broken promise (which are barred by Heart Balm statutes) and actions for replevin or restitution of property (which are permitted). This distinction ensures that while the law will not compensate a suitor for a broken heart, it will protect their property rights.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gill v. Shively (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"