Lexplug logoLexplug

Randall v. Randall

District Court of Appeal of Florida
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 580, 56 So.3d 817, 2011 WL 252726 (2011)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

An engagement ring is a conditional gift that becomes the recipient's separate, nonmarital property upon marriage, and there is no legal exception for family heirlooms that would authorize a court to order its return to the donor upon dissolution of marriage.


Facts:

  • Steven Randall gave Katharine Randall a diamond ring as an engagement gift in contemplation of marriage.
  • The ring was a family heirloom that had previously belonged to Steven's grandmother.
  • Katharine and Steven subsequently married, fulfilling the condition of the engagement gift.
  • The value of the ring was approximately $6,000.
  • The marriage eventually failed, leading the parties to separate and seek a divorce.
  • At the time of separation, the parties had no joint assets to distribute.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the trial court.
  • During the proceedings, the Husband filed a financial affidavit listing the ring as the Wife's nonmarital property.
  • The trial court entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution.
  • In the judgment, the trial court ordered the Wife to return the ring to the Husband, not as equitable distribution, but because it was an heirloom to be saved for the children.
  • The Wife appealed the specific portion of the judgment requiring the return of the ring to the District Court of Appeal.

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 trial court have the authority to order a former wife to return an engagement ring to a former husband upon dissolution of marriage on the basis that the ring is a family heirloom?


Opinions:

Majority - Altenbernd

No. The trial court erred because an engagement ring becomes the wife's nonmarital property immediately upon marriage, and Florida law contains no 'heirloom' exception to this rule. The court reasoned that under Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, courts must set apart each spouse's nonmarital assets. Established precedent dictates that an engagement ring is a gift made on the implied condition that a marriage ensue. Once the marriage occurs, the condition is met, and the gift becomes absolute. Consequently, the ring was the Former Wife's nonmarital property. The court noted that even the Former Husband's financial affidavit listed the ring as the Wife's nonmarital property. Although the trial court attempted a 'Solomonic' solution by ordering the ring returned for the benefit of the children due to its heirloom status, the appellate court held there is no legal basis in Florida to treat heirlooms differently from other nonmarital property.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict property classification system in Florida dissolution law, specifically regarding premarital gifts. It clarifies that the sentimental nature of an item, such as its status as a family heirloom, does not override established property law concepts regarding conditional gifts. By ruling that the condition of the gift (marriage) was satisfied, the court affirmed that the donor loses all legal claim to the engagement ring, regardless of family history. This prevents trial courts from using equitable discretion to redistribute separate, nonmarital property based on moral or sentimental grounds.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Randall v. Randall (2011)

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