Included within the above referred to habitual unfortunate circumstances are broken engagements, which can be very painful and confusing for those involved. On top of all the emotional distress, the interested parties have to decide who keeps what from certain assets which have been bought with thoughts of a shared future together.
This year I was party to an initial discussion relating to a 'difference of opinion / understanding' over the ownership of a (valuable) engagement ring.
It was educational (for me - at least) to learn that the legal position for engagement rings is relatively clearly governed - by a near fifty year old statutory provision, section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which specifically states:
The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.Although it may well seem unfair, this legislation would appear to be intended to keep such disputes out of court - by providing that unless there was an agreement to return the engagement ring if the wedding were not to occur — which a court could imply if (say) the ring is a family heirloom — a fiancée (or fiancé) is under no obligation to return an engagement ring (regardless of who it was who 'called off' the engagement).
This position can be particularly unpleasant if one party seeks to keep a ring, and the other party is solely responsible for a loan taken out to finance acquisition of that ring.
In the hope that it might help people in the future, I make this blog post inviting people to think about their possible agreements upon engagement.
I suspect that few people actively consider the legal aspects of pledging your love with an engagement ring, but in not doing so - people risk 'possession being nine tenths of the law'.
Happy New Year everyone . . .
