In Re the Marriage of Heinzman
596 P.2d 61, 198 Colo. 36, 1979 Colo. LEXIS 677 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gift made in contemplation of marriage is conditioned upon the subsequent marriage taking place. If the engagement is broken by the recipient of the gift (the donee) without the fault of the giver (the donor), the donor is entitled to recover the gift.
Facts:
- In 1970, William entered into a contract to purchase a residence where his girlfriend, Beth, was a tenant, and they began living there together.
- In the spring of 1971, William gave Beth an engagement ring, and the couple became engaged to be married.
- On March 25, 1971, while they were engaged, William executed a deed that conveyed the residence to himself and Beth as joint tenants.
- In June 1973, Beth moved to Nevada, thereby abandoning the home and breaking the engagement.
- The trial court found that Beth broke the engagement and that William was not at fault for the breakup.
- William married another person in August 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- Beth initiated an action against William in the district court of Boulder County, seeking the dissolution of an alleged common law marriage.
- The district court (trial court) found there was no marriage but, with the parties' consent, adjudicated their respective rights to a residence held in joint tenancy.
- The trial court ordered Beth to convey her interest in the property to William, finding the transfer was a gift conditioned on a marriage that did not occur.
- Beth, as appellant, appealed the trial court's property ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order but did so on the alternative legal ground of an 'equitable trust.'
- The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 a gift of real property made to a fiancée in contemplation of marriage conditioned upon the subsequent marriage, allowing the donor to recover the property if the engagement is broken by the donee without fault of the donor?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Groves
Yes, a gift of real property made in contemplation of marriage is conditioned upon the marriage occurring. The court adopted the majority rule that gifts made in contemplation of marriage are not absolute but are conditioned upon the marriage taking place. If the donee, without fault of the donor, breaks the engagement, the donor may recover the gift. The court rejected the intermediate appellate court's reasoning based on an 'equitable trust' and also found that neither a constructive trust (which rectifies fraud) nor a resulting trust (which enforces intent) applied here. The court further held that this action was not barred by the 'Heart Balm Statute,' which abolishes suits for breach of promise to marry. The court reasoned that this statute bars actions for emotional damages from a breakup but does not prevent a property action to recover a conditional gift when the condition (marriage) is not met.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the majority common law rule in Colorado regarding the recovery of gifts made in contemplation of marriage. It establishes a clear precedent that such gifts are conditional, not absolute. The case is significant for drawing a sharp distinction between an action to recover property (permissible) and an action for breach of promise to marry (barred by the Heart Balm Statute). This provides a legal basis for individuals to reclaim significant assets when an engagement is terminated by the recipient, grounding the claim in property law principles rather than torts related to emotional harm.
