Simonian v. Donoian
215 P.2d 119, 96 Cal.App.2d 259, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1363 (1950)
Rule of Law:
Under California Civil Code § 1590, a donor who gives a gift in contemplation of marriage may not recover it if the donor is the party who, without cause, breaches the contract to marry.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1947, Simonian became engaged to the respondent.
- At the time of the engagement, Simonian presented the respondent with a diamond engagement ring.
- Simonian's mother also gave the respondent a diamond wrist watch as an engagement gift.
- The parties set their wedding date for June 27, 1948, and made arrangements for the event.
- Before the wedding date, Simonian, without cause or the respondent's consent, refused to proceed with the marriage and stated it was postponed indefinitely.
- The respondent did not agree to the postponement and remained ready, willing, and able to marry.
- In August 1948, Simonian terminated the marriage agreement without cause.
Procedural Posture:
- Simonian filed an action in the trial court to recover a diamond ring and wrist watch from the respondent.
- The trial court found for the respondent, adjudging that she was the owner of and entitled to the possession of both items.
- Simonian, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 who breaches a contract to marry without cause have a legal right to recover gifts given to the donee in contemplation of that marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, P. J.
No. A donor who breaches the marriage contract without any fault on the donee’s part is not entitled to recover gifts given in contemplation of marriage. The court's decision rests on California Civil Code § 1590, which permits a donor to recover a gift made on the assumption of marriage only if the donee refuses to enter into the marriage or if the marriage is given up by mutual consent. The statute does not provide for recovery by a donor who is at fault for the breach. Since the trial court found that Simonian (the donor) breached the agreement without cause, he does not meet the statutory requirements for recovering the ring. Furthermore, Simonian cannot recover the watch because it was a gift from his parents, not from a "party to a contemplated marriage" as specified in the statute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of California's statute governing the recovery of engagement gifts, establishing a fault-based framework. The decision interprets Civil Code § 1590 to mean that the conditions listed for recovery (donee's refusal or mutual consent) are exclusive. This holding prevents a party who unilaterally and without cause breaks an engagement from using the courts to reclaim gifts, solidifying that the right to recovery is contingent on not being the party at fault for the failed marriage contract. It also strictly limits recovery to gifts made by a party to the marriage, excluding gifts from third parties like family members.
