Opinion ID: 886147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Engagement Ring Disposition

Text: ¶ 35 To preserve the integrity of our gift law and to avoid additional gender bias, we decline to adopt the theory that an engagement ring is a gift subject to an implied condition of marriage. Judicial imputation of conditional gifting would stake new legal territory in Montana. It is not the province of this court or any other court to assume to legislate by judicial interpretation, and to create in favor of any individual or any class of people an exception to the limitation set by the legislature. Taylor v. Rann (1938), 106 Mont. 588, 594, 80 P.2d 376, 379; see also Section 1-2-101, MCA. ¶ 36 The District Court found the engagement ring was voluntarily offered by Albinger on December 14, 1995, without consideration and with the present intent to voluntarily transfer dominion and control to Harris. Harris accepted the ring. Although the court implied a condition of marriage attaching to the gift as a matter of law, we do not. In our judgment, the gift was complete upon delivery, and a completed gift is not revocable. The fact that possession of the ring passed back and forth between Albinger and Harris during the course of their relationship bears no relevance to the issue of ring ownership. All of the elements of gifting must be present to transfer ownership, and the facts do not indicate re-gifting occurred. In fact, Albinger acknowledged Harris' ownership himself when he told Harris to take the car, the horse, the dog and the ring when she left the relationship. We hold that the engagement ring was an unconditional, completed gift upon acceptance and remains in Harris' ownership and control.