Albinger v.

Harris Case Brief Property

Brief Fact Summary.

Albinger (Plaintiff) and Harris (Defendant) were engaged to be married. The engagement ended
and Plaintiff sued Harris for the return of the engagement ring.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A gift given without condition is irrevocable. Montana law does not allow actions in contract
law based upon a promise to marry, unless the promise was elicited through fraud or deceit. A
plaintiff cannot recover an engagement ring by claiming it was a gift conditioned on marriage.
Facts.
Plaintiff and Defendant became engaged, with Plaintiff giving Defendant an engagement ring
worth $29,000. Over the course of a long engagement, the couple repeatedly separated and
reconciled. On each separation, Defendant returned the ring to Plaintiff, and upon
reconciliation, Plaintiff gave the ring to Defendant. In the final argument, Plaintiff told
Defendant to take her ring and other gifts he’d given her and to leave their home. Plaintiff later
filed suit in order to recover the ring. The trial court found that the ring had been given in
contemplation of marriage and that when the condition failed, Plaintiff was entitled to recover
the ring. Defendant appealed.
Issue.
Is an engagement ring given with the condition of marriage?
Held.
(Nelson, J.) No. A gift given without condition is irrevocable. Montana law does not allow
actions in contract law based upon a promise to marry, unless the promise was elicited through
fraud or deceit. A plaintiff cannot recover an engagement ring by claiming it was a gift impliedly
conditioned on marriage. A gift is a voluntary transfer of personal property for no
consideration. When the donor intends a gift, voluntarily delivers it, and the donee accepts the
item, the gift is complete. Unless given with a condition, such gifts are irrevocable, unless when
given in view of death. If engagement rings were given as consideration for the promise to
marry, it would form a contract. In Montana, lawsuits over contracts based upon a promise to
marry are not allowed. If an exception for engagement rings was made, it would be unfair to
women because it would allow men to recover the rings and still prevent women from
recovering any gifts they may give conditioned upon marriage. The legislature would have to
change the law in order to have the courts recognize an engagement ring as impliedly
conditioned upon marriage. Reversed.
Dissent.
(Trieweiler, J.) Gender equality was not raised by the parties and should not be used as a basis
for the majority opinion without allowing the parties to address it. Also, the recovery of
engagement rings is not included in the law’s prohibition governing contract actions made upon
a promise to marry. Other gifts can be given in contemplation of marriage by either gender, so
the law of conditional gifts should include more than just engagement rings. In this case,
Defendant returned the ring on each separation, except for the last one, demonstrating both
parties’ understanding that it was a conditional gift. When the condition went unfulfilled,
Plaintiff was entitled to recover the gift.
Discussion.
In most jurisdictions, engagement rings are considered conditional gifts.

PARTIES
Michael A. Albinger: Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellee
Michelle L. Harris: Defendant and Appellant

FACTS
Albinger gave Harris a diamond ring and diamond earrings on December 14, 1995
Harris returned it
Albinger sent it back
February 23, 1997- break in
Sued for personal injuries and assault
Reconciliation
Separated again April 1998
$1000 telephone charges
complaint filed
counter claim filed

PROCEDURES
August 31, 1998
8th Judicial District Court of Cascade Country, Montana
December 29th, 2000 Supreme Court of Montana

Decision
 September 2, 1999 the district court awarded Albinger the value of the engagement ring
but denired recoverty of the telephone charges
 Harris was awarded $2,500 for pain, suffering and emotional stress
 Harris petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana
 December 29, 2000 – submitted to briefs
 June 6, 2002 Ruling on Albinger was reversed

Decision of a Gift
 “A gift is a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without any
consideration.”

How it relates
 Personal property
 Inter vivos gift (between the living): donative intent, voluntary. Absolute
 Causa Mortis: given in response to dying soon
ISSUES
1. Did the District Court error in determining in enagagement ring is a conditional gift that may
be revoked upon termination of the engagement?

2. Did the District Court error in denying Albinger reimbursement for telephone charges
incurred by Harris during cohabitation?

3. Did the District Court error in awarding Harris compensation for general damages resulting
from an assault and battery by Albinger?

The transfer of an engagement ring does not fall under conditional gift theory, and thus is
complete once the three elements of an inter vivos gift are met. (On again off again couple
break up and man wants the ring back.)

Conditional gift theory says that a gift that is given under a certain condition must be returned
if that condition is not satisfied. For engagement rings, can be no fault gift, in which case it is
returned if the condition, marriage, does not occur, or at fault, in which case it is only returned
if the engagement was dissolved as a result of the bride’s actions. Most jurisdictions follow a
no fault approach. The rule here is that an engagement ring is an unconditional gift, but the
rule in most states is that the gift is not absolute until the marriage ceremony. Court made its
ruling based on a gender bias concept, that women were being put in a worse position than
men because this return of a gift disproportionately affected them.