No, she doesn't get to keep it. The court decided that an engagement ring isn't a normal gift. It's a special gift with a condition attached: the couple has to actually get married. If the wedding is called off for any reason, the condition isn't met, and the ring must go back to the person who gave it. The judges said it would be too messy and pointless to try to figure out who was 'at fault' for the breakup, so they made a simple, modern rule: no wedding, no ring.

Yes, she should get to keep it. This judge disagreed, saying the ring was a completed gift the moment Jerod gave it to Heather. They argued that Jerod broke his promise to marry Heather, so he shouldn't be rewarded by getting the ring back. The dissent also pointed out that this rule is unfair to Heather, who likely spent her own money on wedding preparations that she can't get back.

No, she has to return it, and there should be no exceptions. This judge agreed with the main decision that who was at fault doesn't matter. But he thought the rule should be even stricter, saying that unless the giver committed fraud, the ring should always go back if the wedding is cancelled, period.

Yes, Jerod should get the ring back. We think an engagement ring is a special kind of gift that depends on the wedding actually happening. Since Jerod and Heather didn't get married, the ring should go back to Jerod. It doesn't matter who decided not to get married or why. We think this is the fairest way to handle it because it's really hard to figure out who's to blame when a couple breaks up. Also, people should be free to change their minds about getting married without worrying about losing expensive gifts. This is similar to how we handle divorces now - we try not to blame anyone.

No, I think Heather should keep the ring. When someone gives a gift, it usually belongs to the person who received it once they accept it. There's no evidence that Jerod told Heather she'd have to give the ring back if they didn't get married. Also, it's not fair to Heather because she probably spent money on wedding plans that she can't get back. By giving Jerod the ring, we're basically rewarding him for breaking up with Heather, which doesn't seem right.

Yes, I agree that Jerod should get the ring back, but I think we should always follow this rule no matter what. Even if someone did something really bad to cause the breakup, we shouldn't try to figure that out. It's simpler and fairer to always give the ring back if the couple doesn't get married.

Yes. An engagement ring is, by its very nature, a conditional gift, and if the condition of marriage is not fulfilled, the ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault. The court held that an engagement ring is a unique symbol of a mutual promise to marry, making it inherently conditional upon the marriage occurring. Adopting a no-fault rule aligns with modern public policy, as seen in no-fault divorce laws, and avoids impractical and acrimonious judicial inquiries into the reasons for a broken engagement. The court reasoned that litigating fault would be difficult and counterproductive, whereas a bright-line, no-fault rule provides clarity and better serves public policy by allowing parties to end an engagement without facing financial penalties.

No. Standard principles of gift law, contract law, or equity should apply, which would not require the return of the ring when the donor unjustifiably breaks the engagement. The dissent argued that the ring was a completed inter vivos gift under traditional legal standards, as there was intent, delivery, and acceptance without an express condition. Alternatively, if viewed as a contract, the donor who breached the promise to marry should not be rewarded by having the ring returned. The dissent also highlighted the inequity of the no-fault rule, as it fails to compensate the donee for non-refundable expenses made in contemplation of marriage, thus making the breaching donor whole while leaving the non-breaching donee with financial losses.

Yes. Fault is irrelevant, and if the engagement is broken, the ring must be returned to the donor. The concurrence agreed with the majority's adoption of a no-fault rule but would make the rule even more absolute. It argued against the majority's suggestion of a possible exception for 'extremely gross and rare situations,' stating that the only inquiry should be whether the engagement was broken; if so, the ring must be returned, absent fraud by the donor.

Yes. The engagement ring is a conditional gift, given in contemplation of marriage. Since the marriage did not occur, the ring should be returned to the donor, Jerod, irrespective of who terminated the engagement because the condition of marriage was not fulfilled. We adopt the no-fault approach for several reasons. First, determining fault in a broken engagement is difficult and often involves contradictory testimony. Second, the engagement period should be a time for parties to freely reexamine their commitment. Third, litigating fault would only intensify hurt feelings and delay closure. Fourth, this approach aligns with the no-fault principles applied in divorce cases. We recognize there may be 'extremely gross and rare situations' where fault might be considered, but no such situation is present here.

No. The engagement ring should be considered a completed inter vivos gift, which should not be returned regardless of the engagement's outcome because the conditions of a valid gift—intent, delivery, and acceptance—were met. The majority's view that an engagement ring is a conditional gift ignores general gift law. There was no evidence to support the interpretation that the gift was conditioned upon the marriage taking place. Additionally, returning the ring to Jerod rewards him for breaking the engagement, which goes against contract law principles. The court should consider the non-refundable expenses incurred by the woman in preparation for the wedding.

Yes, but with no exceptions for 'extremely gross and rare situations.' The engagement ring, as a conditional gift, should be returned if the engagement is broken, without considering the fault of either party. The no-fault approach is persuasive, and fault should not be relevant in determining the ownership of the ring after a broken engagement.

Heiman v. Parrish

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot