Hess v. Johnston
163 P.3d 747, 2007 Utah App. LEXIS 222, 2007 UT App 213 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Gifts given during an engagement period are considered absolute unless the donor can prove that, at the time of the transfer, the gifts were explicitly or implicitly conditioned on the marriage occurring. Simply giving a gift because of the engagement is insufficient to make it recoverable if the engagement is broken.
Facts:
- In mid-April 2004, Layne D. Hess and Jody Johnston began dating and, within three months, decided to marry.
- During their engagement, Johnston requested that Hess go on trips with her and undergo a vasectomy.
- In July 2004, Hess paid for the couple to take a seven-day cruise to Alaska.
- In August 2004, Hess underwent a vasectomy at Johnston's request.
- In September 2004, Hess paid for a three-week trip to France for the couple.
- In October 2004, Hess contributed $2400 toward the purchase of a vehicle for Johnston's son.
- The couple twice rescheduled their wedding date.
- In late April 2005, Johnston returned the engagement ring to Hess and informed him she would not marry him, offering no explanation.
Procedural Posture:
- Layne D. Hess filed a complaint against Jody Johnston in a Utah trial court, seeking restitution under theories of conditional gift, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract.
- Johnston filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion for sanctions under Rule 11.
- The trial court denied Johnston's motion for sanctions.
- The trial court granted Johnston's motion and dismissed Hess's complaint with prejudice.
- Hess (appellant) appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the Court of Appeals of Utah.
- Johnston (appellee) cross-appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for sanctions.
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 Utah law permit a person to recover the value of gifts and expenditures made during an engagement period, which are not directly related to wedding preparations, after the other party terminates the engagement, under theories of conditional gift, unjust enrichment, or promissory estoppel?
Opinions:
Majority - McHugh, Judge
No. Utah law does not permit recovery for such expenditures because gifts made during an engagement are not presumed to be conditional on marriage, and reliance on a promise to marry is generally not considered reasonable for recovery under equitable theories. The court rejected Hess's claims on all grounds. Under a conditional gift theory, the court declined to imply a condition of marriage on all engagement-period gifts, stating the donor bears the burden of proving a gift was conditional at the time it was made. Hess failed to allege facts showing his intent was for the gifts to be conditional; their purposes (pleasure trips, birth control) were fulfilled regardless of the marriage. For unjust enrichment, the court found the benefits were conferred gratuitously, as Hess did not expect compensation, and enrichment from a gift is not unjust. The promissory estoppel claim failed because reliance on a promise to marry is inherently problematic, as the engagement period is a 'test period,' and public policy supports the right of individuals to break an engagement without financial penalty. Finally, the breach of contract claim failed because the damages sought (restitution for gifts) did not naturally flow from the breach of a promise to marry and were not foreseeable consequences contemplated by the parties.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limited avenues for recovering economic losses after a broken engagement in Utah, following the abolition of the 'breach of promise to marry' cause of action in Jackson v. Brown. The court establishes a strong presumption that gifts made during an engagement, other than the engagement ring, are absolute unless explicitly conditioned on marriage. This decision narrows the possibility of using equitable remedies like unjust enrichment or promissory estoppel to recoup relationship expenses, reinforcing the public policy that individuals should be free to terminate an engagement without facing litigation over every gift exchanged. The ruling creates a high bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to prove a gift's conditional nature at the time it was given, rather than relying on the context of the engagement alone.
Unlock the full brief for Hess v. Johnston