Engagement Rings & Breaking Up

Not all engagements result in marriage. Just as a married couple often goes their separate ways, so too can a couple call of their engagement. Most of the time, the effects are broken hearts, but once in a while there are legal implications when one party breaks the engagement.

Who keeps the Engagement Ring?

First, if a couple is already married, and the marriage ends in dissolution, the spouses have each “earned” the right to their rings. Moreover, since engagement rings and wedding bands are gifts of tangible personal property, they are not marital property subject to division. C.R.S. 14-10-113(2)(a).

But how about engagement rings if the engagement ends? Colorado’s law of gifts conditioned upon marriage suggest that if the engagement is ended by the person with the ring, the ring must be returned, and if ended by the other party, the ring can be kept. In other words, despite Colorado being a no fault state, when it comes to engagement rings, the law looks at who ended it.

There are very few cases in Colorado dealing with gifts conditioned upon marriage, and no reported Colorado decision actually involving engagement rings. But there is a body of law dealing with gifts in contemplation of marriage.

The seminal Colorado case is In re Marriage of Heinzman, 596 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1979). There, the man purchased a residence, and three months later, when the couple got engaged, he conveyed the property to the couple as joint tenants. Shortly thereafter, the woman moved away, and the man subsequently married another woman.

The trial court found that the residence “was a gift conditioned upon the subsequent ceremonial marriage,” and that by moving away, the woman had abandoned the engagement. Accordingly, she was ordered to convey her interest in the residence back to the man.

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that ruling, analyzing the issue nationwide and adopting what it found to be the majority rule:

“The majority rule appears to be that B must transfer back to A a gift received and held under the following circumstances: A and B are engaged to be married to each other. In contemplation of the formal commencement of that life of bliss A makes a gift to B. Later, through no fault of A, B breaks the engagement. The majority of courts reason that such a gift was conditioned upon a subsequent ceremonial marriage.”

The woman argued that argued that Colorado’s "Heart Balm" statute, which abolished lawsuits for breach of promise to marry, precluded the man from getting the property back. The supreme court disagreed, holding that the act was intended to preclude lawsuits for the direct consequences of ending the engagement, such as humiliation, but did not preclude requiring the return of a gift conditioned upon marriage.

The issue in Heinzman was real property, not an engagement ring. However, it is hard to imagine a gift more conditioned upon marriage than an engagement ring, so the court’s rationale would almost certainly apply to rings as well.

Moreover, the court in Heinzman considered favorably cases from other states that did involve engagement rings, such as De Cicco v. Barker, 159 N.E.2d 534 (Mass. 1959), where the the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated: “an engagement ring is in the nature of a pledge, given on the implied condition that the marriage shall take place. If the contract to marry is terminated without fault on the part of the donor he may recover the ring.” The smart money says that Colorado would apply this rule to any gift conditioned upon marriage, including an engagement ring.

Fault & Breaking Engagement

When it comes to divorce, Colorado is strictly a no-fault state. However, that is not the case with breaking an engagement.

Who keeps the engagement ring depends upon whose "fault" it was the engagement ended. If the engagement ended through no fault of the person who gave the ring, that person gets the ring back. Examples of this may be if the other person simply fell out of love, or met someone else.

But the person with the ring can keep it under the following circumstances:

1. The other person broke off the engagement, rendering it impossible for the person with the ring to perform the condition of getting married.
2. The person with the ring broke the engagement, but it was really the other person’s fault.

As Colorado is a no-fault state when it comes to dissolution of marriage, so we do not have a current body of law which provides guidance as to what ‘fault’ means. Back when Colorado required fault to obtain a dissolution of marriage, grounds included adultery, abandonment, habitual drunkenness and mental cruelty. Presumably if those grounds were sufficient to end a marriage, a person who is the victim of such conduct now could keep the ring.

There is no decision on whether the flip side is also true - if the man breaks the engagement because the woman committed a crime against him, is she therefore the one at fault, so must return the ring? Common sense would say yes, but there is no reported Colorado decision on this point.

One article which has analyzed recent decisions has concluded that a majority of states have moved on from fault, and now hold that an engagement ring must be returned, regardless of who was at fault. "This Diamond Ring Doesn’t Shine for Me Anymore: Who is Entitled to Possession of Engagement Presents when No Marriage Occurs."

Gifts To Married Woman Cannot Be Conditional Gift

In Hooven v. Quintana, 618 P.2d 702 (Colo. App. 1980), a man lavished gifts on a woman who was still married to her husband, buying her a car, paying her bills, and even her legal fees to divorce her husband. Their relationship subsequently ended.

The court found that it would violate public policy to recognize a gift to a married woman was a gift in contemplation of marriage, so the man could recover only the gifts after her divorce was final.

Must Return Conditional Gift Even If No Engagement

In 1995 the Colorado Court of Appeals expanded the Heinzman ruling, applying it to any gift conditioned upon marriage, even if the parties never got engaged. Boydstun v. Loveless, 890 P.2d 267 (Colo.App. 1995).

There, as with Heinzman, the man bought a residence, then transferred it to a joint tenancy with the woman. The woman subsequently moved away. The court held:

“We agree with Keith that the trial court properly concluded that Heinzman is not limited to circumstances in which there is a formal engagement, a transfer of real property in contemplation of marriage, and the breaking of the engagement. Rather, in our view, the holding in Heinzman extends to a situation in which a joint tenancy is created as a gift conditioned upon subsequent marriage of the parties, and such marriage does not occur.”

No Suit for Breach of Promise to Marry in Colorado

Can you really be sued for breaking off an engagement? Not in Colorado.

In 1937, the Colorado legislature abolished "Heart Balm" torts by enacting C.R.S. 13-20-202, which states: “All civil causes of action for breach of promise to marry, alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and seduction are hereby abolished,” and C.R.S. 13-20-203, entitled “Breach of Contract to Marry Not Actionable”, which states:

“No act done within this state shall operate to give rise, either within or without this state, to any of the rights of action abolished by this part 2. No contract to marry made or entered into in this state shall operate to give rise, either within or without this state, to any cause or right of action for the breach thereof, nor shall any contract to marry made in any other state give rise to any cause of action within this state for the breach thereof.”

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this statute in Goldberg v. Musim, 427 P.2d 698 (Colo. 1967), rejecting a suit from a jilted fiance who claimed the legislature could not abolish his right to sue for for alienation of affection.

Prior to that statute, there is even a storied example of a Cripple Creek call girl suing famed Colorado Springs residence Spencer Penrose for $20,000 in 1805 for breach of promise to marry, claiming that he lured her to his bed and impregnated her. According to the book "The Colorado Labor Wars: Cripple Creek 1903-1904, A Centennial Commemoration" by Tim Blevins, et al, her case was dismissed.

“Heart Balm” Torts in Other States

A tort is simply a legal word for a cause of action. The so-called “heart-balm” causes of action read like they’re from the 19th century: alienation of affection, criminal conversion, breach of promise to marry, and seduction.

In 2013, there was an article in Courthouse News Service about a Georgia man who was ordered to pay $50,000 for jilting his fiance. It really did seem a throwback to the past. In that case, the couple lived together and had a child together, then got engaged, with the man giving her a $10,000 ring. In reliance on that promise, the woman quit her job to raise their child. The problem was that the man couldn’t stop cheating on his fiance, and when the woman confronted him about it, he threw her and his child out.

She sued, and the trial court awarded $50,000 in damages and attorney’s fees. A divided Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. What's more, my research disclosed that Georgia is not alone.

According to Divorce Source, there are still 9 states that have heart balm torts: Illinois, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. However, I take this list with a grain of salt, as I've seen other lists with different states listed. And the noted legal blog Volokh Conspiracy reported recently on a South Carolina case with a similar holding.  As recently as 2012, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in Campbell v. Robinson, 726 S.E.2d 221 (S.C. App. 2012) that a 1984 decision holding regarding damages for a jilted bride was still good law:

“She is entitled to recover for the loss of the pecuniary and social advantages of the promised marriage. Also, her mental anguish, humiliation, and injury to health and psyche are elements of damages. In addition, she may recover for losses sustained from expenditures made in preparation of marriage. The jury may consider the monetary value of a marriage which would have given Christine a home.”

Do You Need a Divorce Lawyer in Colorado Springs?

The family law attorneys at Graham.Law have years of experience helping clients through the Colorado legal system. We know Colorado family laws, inside and out, from divorce to legal separation, from annulments to military divorce issues. And we understand Colorado common law marriage, and the division of personal property. For more information about our El Paso County family law firm, click on:

• Why Graham.Law for your Colorado Family Law Case. Learn about the benefits of hiring family law specialists, and our firm in particular.
• Our family law team. The great attorneys and paralegals at Graham.Law.
• Contact Us. Reach out to see if we can help with your divorce or family law case.

Colorado family law is all we do. Period.