Source: https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/suits-for-breach-of-promise-to-marry
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 03:45:40
Document Index: 399988761

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 36', '§ 43', '§ 52', '§ 771', '§ 2', '§ 80', '§ 1902', '§ 81']

LawShelf Suits for Breach of Promise to Marry
Contracts Related to Marriage
Suits for Breach of Promise to Marry
One who gives a gift or creates a trust.
About one-half of American states today permit a suit for breach of promise to marry. Historically, most plaintiffs in breach-of-promise suits have been women. However, virtually all states that allow such actions at all, allow suits to be brought by either the man or the woman. Usually, the damages allowed are for reimbursement of the expenditures made in reliance upon the upcoming wedding.
EXAMPLE: Paulette sues for breach of promise to marry. David moves to dismiss on the ground that the action is contrary to public policy. The court held that Paulette could recover in a quasi-contract, quasi-tort action for foreseeable special and general damages. So, she was able to recover for mental anguish, loss to reputation and injury to health. Conversely, damages for loss of expected financial and social position was not allowed. See, e.g., Standard v. Bolin, 565 P.2d 94 (Wash. 1977).
In Tennessee, courts want to see a written contract. Specifically,
in all actions for damages for the breach of promise or contract of marriage which 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.
See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-401 (2005).
On the other hand, states that prohibit these types of actions clearly state so in their statutes: For example:
California: Cal. Civ. Code § 43.4 (2005). A fraudulent promise to marry or to cohabit after marriage does not give rise to a cause of action for damages.
Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572b (2004). No action may be brought upon any cause arising from . . . breach of a promise to marry.
Florida: Fla. Stat. § 771.01 (2005). The rights of action heretofore existing to recover sums of money as damage . . . breach of contract to marry are hereby abolished.
New Jersey: N.J. Stat. § 2A:23-1 (2005). The rights of action formerly existing to recover sums of money as damage for . . . breach of contract to marry are abolished from and after June 27, 1935.
New York: NY CLS Civ. R. § 80-a (2005). The rights of action to recover sums of money as damages for. . . breach of contract to marry are abolished. No act done within this state shall operate to give rise, either within or without this state, to any such right of action. No contract to marry made or entered into in this state shall operate to give rise, either within or without this state, to any cause or right of action for its breach.
Pennsylvania: 23 Pa.C.S. § 1902 (2005). All causes of action for breach of contract to marry are abolished.
Despite the restriction on suits for a breach of a promise to marry, injured parties can still recover property transferred in contemplation of marriage. For instance, in New York, the law states:
See NY CLS Civ. R. § 81 (2005).
The most common dispute following a cancelled wedding is what to do with the engagement ring. Courts generally treat the engagement ring as a gift, from the donor (the person who gave the ring) to the donee (the person who received it). To find a legal gift, a court looks for three things:
the donor's intent to give the ring as a gift,
the donor's delivery of it to the donee, and
the donee's acceptance of the item.
If the person to whom the ring was given can show all three elements, the ring is considered a gift to him or her.
This is an area of the law where the rules vary greatly depending upon the jurisdiction in which you reside. The majority of courts consider such a gift to be a conditional gift. This means that the gift is not final unless the future event (ie the wedding) occurs. If that the event does not occur, then the donor has the right to get the gift back. See, e.g., Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 633 (Kan. 1997). It does not matter who decided to call off the wedding.
The minority states reject the conditional gift theory. For example, the Supreme Court of Montana has recently come down on the opposite side of this issue, rejecting the conditional gift theory and declaring that an engagement ring is an unconditional, completed gift and that's that. See, e.g., Albinger v. Harris, 2002 WL 1226858 (Mont. June 6, 2002).
In comparison, just a few years ago the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stuck steadfastly to the no-fault reasoning and decreed that the donor should always get the ring back if the engagement is broken off, regardless of who broke it off or why. See Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1999). Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Wisconsin have the same rule. See Heiman v. Parrish, 942 P.2d 631, 636 (Kan. 1997).
EXAMPLE: When Ben and Jennifer got engaged 18 months ago, Ben bought her a 1.5 carat pink diamond engagement ring. Recently, after a tumultuous relationship and one postponed wedding, they call off their engagement. Reportedly, Jennifer is the one who initiated the breakup. As with many questions in the family law area, for a definitive answer as to who gets the ring, the state of residence will govern the decision.
With the erosion of the institution of marriage, more people live together—sometimes as a precursor to marriage. Like couples contemplating marriage, individuals who decide to cohabitate also have a need to protect their property interests.