Consider the following scenario:
Former NBA star Gilbert Arenas proposed to his previous girlfriend and mother of his four children, Laura Govan, with a $400,000.00 engagement ring. Eight days later, the couple separated. Through an elaborate plot to retrieve the ring, Arenas created a $10,000.00 replica, reconciled his relationship with Govan, and replaced the ring with the replica without Govan’s knowledge.
Years later, after the relationship had ended, Arenas posted a picture of the real ring on his social media. Govan, understandably, sued, alleging Arenas had stolen the ring. But at the end of the case, the presiding judge sided with Arenas, which begs the question: How did Arenas win?
The law regarding engagement rings has spawned from countless suits similar to Arenas.
In general, engagement rings are considered conditional gifts, meaning that the ring is given on the condition, or the occurrence, of marriage. If the engagement is broken off prior to marriage, the condition has not been fulfilled, and the recipient is no longer entitled to the ring.
Jurisdictions are divided in their respective approaches to determine which party should have the right to keep the ring. In Illinois, courts follow the no-fault approach, meaning they do not look to the underlying cause of the termination of the engagement. In other words, Illinois courts do not care which party caused the breakup.
For example, after three years of dating, Dan proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. A couple of months down the road, Lisa learns that Dan has been having an affair, and the two break up. In Illinois, Lisa is not automatically entitled to the ring because Dan may have caused the breakup.
Instead, Illinois courts look to who broke off the engagement. Liceaga v. Baez, 2019 IL App (1st) 181170 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2019). The majority rule is that the ring must be returned to the donor, unless the donor ended the engagement. If the end of the engagement was a mutual decision, the donor of the ring is entitled to its return. Vann v. Vehrs, 260 Ill.App.3d 648 (1994).
To help illustrate Illinois’ approach, imagine the following scenarios with Dan and Lisa. In the above example, after discovering that Dan has been having an affair, Lisa breaks up with him and calls off the engagement. In this case, since Lisa was the one to end the engagement, the ring must be returned to Dan, the donor of the ring.
However, let’s say that after learning of the affair, Lisa tells Dan she wants to work things out and continue with the engagement. Dan, in response, declines and tells Lisa he no longer wants to get married. In this case, since Dan, the donor of the ring, ended the engagement, Lisa is entitled to keep the ring.
“The law in Illinois appears established that a gift given in contemplation of marriage is deemed to be conditional on the subsequent marriage of the parties, and the party who fails to perform on the condition of the gift has no right to property acquired under such pretenses.” Harris v. Davis, 139 Ill.App.3d 1046, 1048 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (citations omitted).
If the engagement has ended, either party may bring an action in an Illinois court for replevin. An action for replevin allows a party entitled to the possession of a good, in this case the engagement ring, to recover property that has been wrongfully taken or detained.
“In a replevin action involving an engagement ring, the correct inquiry in deciding which party is entitled to possession of the ring is which party’s act conclusively ended the engagement.” Liceaga, 2019 IL App (1st) 181170, ¶ 16 (citation omitted).
Returning to the original Arenas scenario, we know Govan has resided in California and previously starred in a reality TV show based in Los Angeles. Assuming Govan brought the case in California, California, similar to Illinois, looks to who caused the end of the engagement to determine who keeps the ring. In this case, given that the presiding judge sided with Arenas, it is most likely that Govan was the one to end the engagement.
Understanding the law on engagement rings can help to secure possession and deter potential legal conflicts. If you are facing a legal dispute, or simply need some clarity regarding your engagement ring, contact Beermann LLP today for guidance.
Thomas T. Field, Equity Partner, JD, MBA, CFL
For more on Mr. Field, please visit: www.beermannlaw.com/team/thomas-t-field; email: ttfield@beermannlaw.com; or call (312) 621-1216.
