The internet has been buzzing with the story of Danielle Cavaliei and John Gunther, a 20-something couple that became engaged in March 2008 and was to wed in October 2009. But true love did not run smooth and the couple called off the wedding short of liftoff. The problem was, who should get custody of the $19,000 white-gold 2.2 carat diamond engagement ring?
This is a very common problem, with 80% of today's American brides receiving diamond engagement rings. The tradition of the diamond engagement ring goes all the way back to a well crafted De Beers diamond company ad campaign in the 1930s. Before that, a woman who was jilted short of the altar could sue for damages due to "Breach of Promise to Marry". As courts began to phase out this legal principle that protected women from mirage men, the diamond ring became the substitute symbol of sincere commitment by the future groom.
New York Justice F. Dana Winslow ruled that Danielle had to return the ring to John, as New York state law holds that in no fault engagement, all jewlery "in contemplation of marriage" is returned regardless of who calls off the engagement. However, in California, if the man breaks the engagement he doesn't get the ring back, and in Montana, the engagement ring is considered an unconditional gift that never has to be returned. Which state do you think has it right?
