McIntire v. Raukhorst, 65 Ohio App.

3d 728 (1989)

Judicial History The trial court determined McIntire terminated his engagement to Raukhorst and that the ring was given as a simple gift with no conditions or terms stated. The court held that Raukhorst was entitled to keep the ring. Facts McIntire and Raukhorst began dating in October 1986. In January 1988, McIntire proposed marriage to Raukhorst and gave her a diamond engagement ring when she agreed to marry him. Approximately a month later, McIntire ended the engagement and asked for the ring back. Raukhorst refused to return it. Issue Did the trial court err in deciding that Raukhorst can keep the ring? a) Is the gift of an engagement ring, when given in contemplation of marriage, to be considered a conditional gift if there is no agreement otherwise? b) Should the ring be returned to the donor if the condition of marriage is not fulfilled and the donor has unjustifiably ended the engagement? Rules Wilson v. Dabo(1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 169, 170, 10 OBR 223, 223, 461 N.E.2d 8, 9: the transfer of the property, even if a gift, was based on the mutual understanding that the parties would be married and it would be unjust enrichment if not returned to the donor. Lyle v. Durham,16 Ohio App. 3d 1 (1984): an engagement ring is a unique type of conditional gift. When the condition is not fulfilled, the ring or its value should be returned to the donor, no matter who broke the engagement or caused it to be broken.

Analysis An engagement ring, absent any agreement to the contrary, is a gift given in consideration of the fulfillment of marriage. If that condition is not met, the ring is to be returned, regardless of who or why the engagement was ended. Lyle, Supra establishes this so clearly that it is considered a bright line test for similar situations where there is no agreement to the contrary. This rule also makes it unnecessary for the court to try to establish which party is at fault, or if even a fault exists. For this reason, the court rejects the latter part of the rationale of Wilson. Conclusion The Court of Appeals of Ohio finds that the trial court was correct in determining McIntire gave the ring as a gift. However, the Appeals Court finds that the ring was given as a conditional gift in consideration of marriage and that when marriage was not fulfilled, McIntire was entitled to recover the ring, despite any finding of fault. The trial courts judgment was reversed and the cause is remanded.