United States: With This Ring I Do Thee (Sue)

C. Baxter and Sandra Campos began a romantic relationship in 2006. They divided their time between their respective homes in Connecticut and Manhattan. Possessions were moved between the two houses, including artwork and a Steinway piano, without transfer in title. Campos purchased a 2008 Lexus, which he registered in his name and for which he paid taxes. Baxter drove the car.

Baxter and Campos got engaged in November 2012. They shopped for a ring and Baxter purchased one for Campos. In January 2014, he presented her with the ring (appraised at $24,000).

In February 2014, Campos sent Baxter a Valentine’s Day card. The card had a picture of her displaying a diamond ring on her left ring finger, with the pre-printed language on the card: “Today Tomorrow Always.”

Baxter added Campos to his health insurance plan and listed her as his domestic partner.

By email in March, 2014, in the course of discussing their future plans, Campos told Baxter: “You have asked me numerous times in the past couple of weeks whether or not I see myself being able to move from NYC. Yes, I can. You have asked me numerous times whether or not I see being able to pull kids out of schools in a year. Yes, I can. You have asked me if I want to marry you and be in the same home and city. Yes, I do.”

During 2014 and 2015, Campos and Baxter continued their relationship with periods of conflict and reconciliation. In December 2015, in the course of discussing their relationship, they agreed that title to the Lexus would be transferred to Campos with the understanding that she would transfer it back should their relationship end. Campos also agreed to return the engagement ring in the event a marriage did not ensue.

Campos and Baxter continued discussing their relationship. In July 2016, Campos asked Baxter about the return of her personal property stored at Baxter’s house. Baxter agreed to let her retrieve the property whenever she wished. While Baxter preferred to continue the relationship, he told Campos that if she ended it, she would have to return his property, including the piano, engagement ring, and artwork, and resolve the ownership of the Lexus.

In October 2016, Campos told Baxter that she needed to move her furniture and artwork from his home and asked about the cost of the piano with a view toward purchasing it from him. Baxter gave her a copy of the sales receipt.

In November 2016, Baxter told Campos that he had arranged for movers to return Campos’ belongings to her and asked that she return his piano and artwork at the same time. Campos agreed to return the artwork and told Baxter that she would obtain an appraisal for the piano. In December 2016, Baxter returned Campos’ property to her.

In July 2017, at Campos’ suggestion, the parties spent a week of vacation together with their children. They argued during the vacation but did not resolve whether the relationship would continue. Without telling Baxter, Campos traded in the Lexus for a new, more expensive model.

By September 2017, Baxter realized that Campos was not genuinely interested in continuing the relationship. On October 20, 2017, he formally asked her to return his property, and offered to sell the piano to her for $8,000. Campos counter-offered to buy it for $4,000, which Baxter rejected and told her to return the piano and the rest of his property, preferably before Thanksgiving. Campos replied that, as the piano was a gift, Baxter should sell it to her for $4,000. She also asserted that Baxter had promised certain art to her daughter as a birthday present. A few weeks later, Campos returned Baxter’s artwork to him, but refused to return the engagement ring, the piano, and the car.

Litigation ensued. Baxter moved for summary judgment.

Baxter asserted claims against Campos to recover the piano and engagement ring, for conversion of the piano, ring, and car, and for unjust enrichment. Also for fraudulent inducement related to the car—asserting that Campos materially misrepresented her intent to continue her relationship with Baxter; that she did not intend to continue it; and that, absent the misrepresentation, on which Baxter justifiably relied, he would not have transferred title to the car to her. Baxter also sought an injunction prohibiting Campos from selling or otherwise disposing of the piano and ring.

Campos denied Baxter’s allegations and asserted that Baxter gifted the car to her and, upon the conclusion of their relationship, the car was transferred to Campos’s name for her to assume responsibility for it. She also denied that the ring was an engagement ring or that the parties were ever engaged, or that she was required to return any of the property given to her by Baxter as gifts.

In defense to the fraudulent inducement claim, Campos stated that the parties’ relationship was over by the time Baxter transferred title to the car to her.

In support of her counterclaims, Campos alleged that: throughout the parties’ relationship, Baxter regularly gave her and her children gifts; the parties jointly selected for purchase various artwork and it was their intention that the art would be jointly owned even though it would be located in Baxter’s home; in October 2015, Campos ended the parties’ relationship and there had been no reconciliation; the parties did not vacation together in July 2017; and Baxter had repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to restore the relationship.

Campos asserted a counterclaim for a constructive trust given the joint purchase of the artwork; intent that it be mutually owned and enjoyed; and her demonstration that the parties intended joint ownership based on Baxter’s statements and conduct, on which she reasonably relied. She thus spent time, money, and effort in selecting the artwork. Moreover, she maintained that Baxter took custody of the artwork under circumstances creating a fiduciary relationship. And it was just and equitable that a constructive trust be imposed for 50 percent of the artwork’s value. Campos also contended that Baxter converted their joint property, including artwork and real property.

Campos relied on an email sent in March, 2014, in which Baxter summarized a conversation with Campos the night before, during which they discussed retaining someone to help them decide if they should get back together. In an email in December, 2015, Baxter stated that the parties “need to move forward together getting engaged and getting married. Or need to part permanently and completely unwind any remaining items between [them] and have permanent closure.” In the same email chain, Baxter wrote “if we choose to move forward together, we would get engaged. Immediately, like before holidays, I have a special ring which I’ve had for some time now (actually think it is in your home) and a special place I’ve had in mind forever. Just wanted to let you know concrete timing given some of our past interactions.” Campos argued that the ring was unrelated to an engagement, and that the appraisal did not reflect that it was an engagement ring.

New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b provides that a party may recover a chattel, money or securities, or the value thereof, if the sole consideration for their transfer was a contemplated marriage which did not occur.

In her March, 2014 email, Campos expressed an agreement to marry Baxter and before that, in her 2014 Valentine's Day card to him, she prominently displayed a diamond ring on her left ring finger. This evidence constituted evidence that the ring was given to her in contemplation of marriage. That property was given in contemplation of marriage does not mean that the marriage will occur. As in many relationships, parties who at one time contemplated marriage change their minds. The Court concluded that, whether Campos’s eventual reservations indicated that she had never contemplated marriage, notwithstanding the Valentine’s Day card and March, 2014 email, was a questions for a jury.

While it was undisputed that Baxter purchased the piano, it was always at Campos’s home. And while Campos offered to buy the piano from Baxter, she also contemporaneously told Baxter that she believed the piano had been a gift to her and her children. Consequently, Campos’s offer to purchase the piano constituted evidence that it was not a gift. And rights to the piano was another question for a jury.

Baxter could not establish his right to summary judgment. He also failed to establish that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. There was also no indication that Campos planned or was about to dispose of the property. So the Court denied Baxter's application for an injunction.

* * * *

But compare:

Glenn McQuade and Aimee Safian were engaged to be married in 2012. McQuade gave Safian an engagement ring that cost him $6,650.. But no formal wedding ceremony was ever undertaken, although thy lived and had two children together.

The decision to defer the wedding was allegedly for financial reasons and for most of the six year cohabitation time appeared consensual. The parties broke up on May 1, 2018. And McQuade requested the return of his engagement ring in November 2019, after a custody battle.

Safian asserted three defenses to the argument that the engagement ring was a gift conditioned upon marriage; i.e. (1) the parties mutually decided to defer the wedding; (2) the parties resided together for over six years either as common law spouses or as domestic partners; and (3) the action was untimely. Safian alleged that those actions met the condition of a gift, and that it would be inequitable to require return of the ring after such a long period of time.

The New York Civil Rights Law authorized recovery of chattels under an unjust enrichment cause of action. It established a “no-fault” cause of action which requires the return of all gifts given in contemplation of marriage, regardless of the cause of the non- marriage. Under the statute, the marriage cannot be equitably/retroactively validated by reasons of estoppel, mutual agreement or the parties conduct.

Safian argued that her status as a common law wife and her registration of McQuade a domestic partner (for the purpose of obtaining family health benefits with her school district employer) satisfied the engagement condition in contemplation of marriage. This defense was also unavailable as New York common law marriages were abolished many years ago.

The demand for a return of an engagement ring is an action in replevin. New York applies a three year statute of limitations to a personal property replevin cause of action. The three year limitation period begins to run on the date that the demand for a return of the ring is made and refused. McQuade requested the return of the ring sometime between the couples breakup in May and/or November 2018. In either event, the statute of limitations had yet to run by the February 7, 2019 filing of the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court granted judgment directing Safian to return of the engagement ring to McQuade. And, in the event the ring was not returned, the Court would enter judgment against Safian for $5,000.

To read the full court decision on Baxter v Campos, click here and click here for Glenn McQuade v. Aimee Safian.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions