465 N.W.2d 669 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990)
John Fierro and Janan Hoel became engaged shortly before Thanksgiving in 1987.1 At the time of the proposal, Fierro presented Hoel with a 1.37 carat diamond ring in a platinum setting valued at approximately $9,000.2 The couple shared the news of their engagement with family and friends and began making wedding plans.3
Fierro began searching for homes in the New York area near Manhattan.4 After showing Hoel several prospective sites, she decided to let him conduct the search alone.5 Fierro located a condominium priced at $121,000 and arranged financing through a loan from his parents, who prepared mortgage contracts.6 During a visit in early 1989, Fierro asked Hoel to sign the mortgage papers, but she refused and stated she wanted to discuss the matter with her father.7 Several days later, Fierro again requested her signature.8 After further communications, Fierro ended the engagement in March 1988.9
Prior to giving the ring, Fierro had given Hoel a pin that belonged to his grandmother and explicitly told her the pin was to be returned if they ever broke up.10 When the engagement ended, Hoel promptly returned the pin.11 Fierro requested that Hoel return the engagement ring, but she refused.12 Additional unsuccessful attempts to recover the ring led Fierro to file a lawsuit seeking to establish ownership of the ring.13
The district court determined that the ring was a completed gift upon delivery because Fierro had not placed any express conditions on it at the time of transfer.14 Fierro appealed the decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals.15
Whether an engagement ring is a conditional gift or a completed gift upon delivery?16
Yes. Applying the rule to these facts, Fierro gave the ring to Hoel at the proposal in 1987.19 The couple then shared the news and began wedding plans, confirming the gift was made in contemplation of marriage.20 Because the marriage never occurred after the engagement ended in March 1988, the condition was not fulfilled and the ring must be returned to Fierro.21
An engagement ring is a conditional gift that must be returned to the donor if the marriage does not occur.22
Whether the donor of an engagement ring must expressly state a condition of marriage at the time of delivery for the gift to be treated as conditional?23
No express condition is required. The condition of marriage is implied in fact or imposed by law.24 The donor meets the burden of establishing the conditional nature of the gift by proving by a preponderance of evidence that the gift was given in contemplation of marriage.25 Requiring the donor to state intentions in the alternative is unduly harsh and unnecessary.26
No. The facts show that Fierro did not expressly state a condition of marriage when he gave the ring to Hoel, unlike the explicit condition he placed on the heirloom pin.27 The district court required an express condition at delivery.28 The majority opinion emphasizes that at the moment of a marriage proposal, couples are least inclined to utter any disparaging comments concerning the longevity of the relationship, making an express condition requirement unduly harsh and unnecessary.29
The donor need not expressly state the condition of marriage at the time of delivery for the gift to be treated as conditional.30
Related opinions on this issue
I respectfully dissent.31 If an unqualified transfer to the donee is proved, one asserting the delivery was made on some condition or trust has the burden of establishing such condition or trust.32 The three essential elements for an inter vivos gift are donative intent, delivery and acceptance.33
There is no question there has been a delivery and an acceptance.34 The donative intent of the grantor is the controlling consideration.35 In this case the intention of John was evident from the testimony presented.36
If John had imposed a condition of marriage on the gift of the ring, such a requirement must have been explicit and known.37 Absent any such evidence of a condition, the giving of the ring is a valid completed gift.38
Whether fault in terminating an engagement affects the donor's right to recover the engagement ring?39
Fault is irrelevant in an engagement setting. The no-fault approach is adopted because the major purpose of the engagement period is to allow a couple time to test the permanency of their feelings. It would be highly ironic to penalize the donor for taking steps to prevent a possibly unhappy marriage. The gift must be returned regardless of who ended the engagement.40
No. The facts establish that Fierro ended the engagement in March 1988 after Hoel refused to sign the mortgage papers for the condominium.41 Under an older fault-based approach this termination might bar recovery, but the court rejects that rule as sexist and archaic.42 The ring must be returned to Fierro irrespective of fault.43
Fault in terminating an engagement does not affect the donor's right to recover the engagement ring.44