Dominic Reid v. Michelle Shelton (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff has sued the defendant on a two-count complaint.   The two counts each make the same basic factual allegations.   It is alleged that in October 2007 the couple entered into a contract to marry and in consideration the plaintiff gave the defendant an engagement ring.   In July or August 2008 problems arose between the parties, the engagement was broken off, and the plaintiff demanded that the defendant return the consideration given for the marriage contract, to wit:  the engagement ring.   The complaint alleges that the defendant refuses to return the engagement ring despite repeated requests.   The second count makes the same allegations and adds that the defendant has been unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff is entitled to be recompensed for the value of the ring or to have the ring itself returned to the plaintiff.

In his answer the defendant denies all allegations of the complaint except that the parties entered into a contract to marry in October 2007, and that in July or August 2008 the engagement was broken off.   By way of two special defenses the defendant first alleges that the ring was given to the defendant on her birthday, October 15, 2007, as a birthday gift, and that it remains as a birthday gift.   The second special defense alleged that the statute of limitations for any civil action regarding the retrieval of the ring have long since passed.   The special defenses were denied by the plaintiff.

In addition the defendant has filed a counterclaim alleging that in October 2007 the parties entered into a contract to marry, that on October 15, 2007, which was the defendant's birthday, the plaintiff gave the defendant a ring, and the parties expected to marry.   The counterclaim alleges that in July or August 2008 the plaintiff unilaterally reneged in his desire to marry the defendant and he broke off the engagement.   This conduct by the plaintiff allegedly caused the defendant to suffer intentional infliction of emotional distress in that the plaintiff acted intentionally or recklessly by reneging on his promise to marry, by falsely claiming that his gift to the defendant was consideration for her agreeing to marry him rather than a gift, that his conduct caused the defendant to be deeply anxious and distressed, and as a result she suffered extreme emotional distress.   By way of answer to the counterclaim the plaintiff admits that October 15, 2007 was the defendant's birthday but denies that the engagement ring had anything to do with the birthday, and he admits that the problems between the parties caused the breakdown of the engagement but he denies that this was a unilateral action on his part.

This case was tried before this court as a bench trial on October 23, 2013.   The only witnesses were the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant's mother, Mary Shelton.

At the conclusion of the evidence counsel for the parties made oral arguments concerning their respective claims.   Plaintiff's counsel claimed that the court should find that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage, that the marriage had not taken place, and that the ring should be ordered returned to the plaintiff.   The plaintiff claimed that the concept of no-fault divorce should be carried over to the issue of possession of the engagement ring and that fault for the breakup of the parties should not be considered in making that determination.   The plaintiff also argued that the evidence did not support the defendant's claim of damages based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defense counsel argued that the ring was not given in contemplation of marriage, that it was a birthday gift, and there was no reason to order it returned to the defendant.   He also claimed that the defendant had proven the elements of her counterclaim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and that she should be awarded reasonable damages on that claim.   Defense counsel made no claim with regard to the plaintiff's claim that the no-fault concept should be applied in determining the right to possession of the ring.   He also made no reference to the defendant's second special defense that the statute of limitations barred recovery in this case.

Based on the evidence offered at trial and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence this court finds the following facts and reaches the following conclusions.   On October 8, 2007 the plaintiff went to New York City alone and purchased an engagement ring for $9,000.00 which was paid for by his two credit cards.   The plaintiff obtained an appraisal from the store which stated that the “total replacement value” of the engagement ring was $16,000.00.  (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.) He returned to New Haven, showed the ring to the defendant's mother and daughter and said he wanted to get engaged to marry the defendant.   The plaintiff gave the ring to the defendant on October 14, 2007, which was the day before her birthday.   On October 15, 2007 the plaintiff, the defendant, and her two daughters went to New York to have the ring sized for the defendant.   It was the defendant's birthday and the plaintiff also purchased a pair of diamond earrings for $1,430.00 and gave them to the defendant that day as a birthday present.   The plaintiff gave the engagement ring to the defendant for the purpose of getting married, and it was his intention to marry the defendant when he gave her the engagement ring.   The plaintiff gave the defendant a pair of diamond earrings, which cost him $1,430.00, as a significant birthday present on her birthday.

The plaintiff wants the ring back because he claims that the ring was given as a conditional gift with the condition being the marriage of the parties.   The defendant has made no claim with respect to what happens to the ring if the court should find that the ring was given on the condition that the parties would subsequently wed.   The defendant simply claims that the ring was given as a gift and that it is now the defendant's property.

The court finds that the ring was given as an engagement ring in contemplation of marriage.   The ring was not given to the defendant as a birthday gift.   The defendant has not made any claim concerning the disposition of an engagement ring when the relationship has been terminated and the marriage plans cancelled.   The one case referred to by defense counsel is the decision by Judge Gormley in Thorndike v. Demirs, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, Docket No. 5000243 (July 26, 2007) 44 Conn. L. Rptr. 30.   In that case Judge Gormley adopted the “no-fault” concept in determining the disposition of the engagement ring.  “So this court is left to decide whether it will follow the single 43–year–old precedent of Finch or join the modern view cases that fault should not be a factor in determining who keeps an engagement ring.   The modern view is that the gift of the engagement ring is a conditional gift, the condition being the subsequent marriage of the parties.   If the marriage does not take place, the condition has not been met and the ring should be returned to the donor.   After a review of numerous cases and A.L.R. treatises, this court is convinced that the modern no-fault rule is clearly the better rule and comports with the modern trends on handling family matters on a no fault basis.”   Thorndike v. Demirs, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, Docket No. 5000243 (July 26, 2007), p. 9. This court agrees with that approach, for all of the reasons set forth by Judge Gormley, and orders that the engagement ring be returned to the plaintiff.

The court also finds that the defendant has failed to prove her counterclaim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that she has abandoned her special defense of the statute of limitations.

A judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff ordering that the defendant return the engagement ring, as described in Exhibit 1, to the plaintiff.

The court retains jurisdiction of this case.   In the event that the defendant delivers possession of the ring to the plaintiff within 30 days of this judgment the plaintiff shall file a satisfaction of judgment.   In the event that the ring is not delivered to the plaintiff within 30 days of this judgment the plaintiff shall be entitled to file a motion for a judgment of damages as against the defendant.

William L. Hadden, Jr.

Judge Trial Referee

Hadden, William L., J.T.R.