Who Gets the Ring? Claims for Breach of Contract or Promise to Marry in Tennessee
Sometimes the wheels may fall off before the wedding day, and after the dust settles, one may ask “so what happens to the engagement ring?” The proposing party may have a cause of action for the breach of a promise or breach of contract to marry in Tennessee. This cause of action originates in Tennessee tort law under Tennessee Code Annotated § T.C.A. § 36-3-401, which states that:
In all actions for damages for the breach of promise or contract of marriage that may hereafter be tried in the courts of this state, unless there is written evidence of such contract, signed by the party against whom the action is brought, the alleged contract must be proved by at least two (2) disinterested witnesses before any recovery may be allowed.
The first requirement to have a cause of action for a breach of promise or breach of contract for marriage is to have an actual, written contract signed by the breaching party. Formal contracts to marry are very common, but are prevalent used in certain cultures or societies. This is the most straightforward way to establish that a contract for marriage exists.
The statute provides one other way to establish a cause of action for breach of promise to marry if there is not an actual written contract, or no evidence of such contract. This is by proving through at at least two (2) disinterested witnesses that the contract for marriage exists. There is not much case law on the breach of contract for marriage claim, and what little case law Tennessee has only discusses the part everyone is most curious about: “what happens to the ring?” Tennessee law is silent as to how to prove that the contract exists, or what is sufficient to establish that the contract to marriage exists. Before social media or modern wedding culture, this probably could have been established through a formal meeting between the partners and families to discuss the marriage, or a formal meeting between the partners and a priest and other members of the clergy.
This would be much easier to prove in today’s society where engagements are more public. People often plan an engagement where the families are present and there to witness the emphatic “Yes!” in person. At the very least, there is usually a photographer, whether it’s a professional or someone with the latest iPhone. Social media is filled with pictures of the exact moment the proposal happened, and the exact moment the proposal for marriage was accepted. People in their twenties are inundated with content like this, and of the bride-to-be flashing her new ring around.
Once you establish that you have a valid cause of action for a breach of promise or contract for marriage, you can move on to the next, and probably most important step. Answering the question of “who gets the ring?”
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee answered that question in Crippin v. Campbell 2007 WL 2768076 (Ct. App. Tenn. 2007). The proposing party sued his former fiancé to seek the return of the engagement ring after the marriage did not materialize. Id. at *1. The trial court held that the passing of the engagement ring was a completed gift upon the transfer of the ring to the party proposed to. Id. The appeal followed, and the proposing party argued that the transfer of an engagement ring is a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage. Id. The Crippin Court drew from the only citable authority in Tennessee addressing this issue. The rule applied came from In re Berry, which that court held that “gifts given in contemplation of marriage are given on condition that the marriage ensue”. 1 B.R. 127 (Bankr.E.D. Tenn. 1979).
The Crippin Court ultimately held that an engagement ring is a gift given in contemplation of marriage, and therefore is a conditional gift. Id. at *4. If the marriage is not completed, then ownership of the engagement ring never vests in the donee (party proposed to) and the donor (proposing party) is entitled to the return of the ring. Id. The Crippin Court also declined to recognize fault for the failed marriage in determining if the donor is entitled to have the ring returned Id. The rule adopted by the Court is “more in essence of what occurs, and what is contemplated, at the time of an engagement”. Id. The Court’s reasoning is drawn from earlier cited cases in its ruling. More specifically, Fierro v. Hoel, 465 N.W.2d 669, 671 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (it would be “unduly harsh and unnecessary” for courts to require the person proposing marriage to specify in advance, on a bended knee, that he wants the ring back if the marriage does not occur.)
So, if you can prove a promise or contract for marriage existed and was subsequently breached before the marriage was completed, you could be entitled to the return of the engagement ring. There is little case law on this issue in Tennessee, so this rationale could apply to potentially more than an engagement ring. This cause of action could be used to recoup other conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage, which could be any token or item used to symbolize the couple’s intent to marry. This could include other jewelry, besides the traditional engagement ring, used to propose and announce the parties’ intent to marry. Or it could include something with sentimental value, such as a family heirloom or other symbolic item that is not jewelry. I also believe this cause of action could apply to the very rare instance where two partners propose to each other at the same time, and this engagement eventually fails. The result would probably be a ring swap in the end, but I believe the rule would still apply.
