Opinion ID: 2976925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Engagement Ring

Text: Tubbs received a $7,274.42 engagement ring from Church, but testified that she no longer possessed it; she “threw it over the bridge in Elk Creek River.” Tubbs acknowledges that Michigan law categorizes engagement rings as conditional gifts, rather than outright gifts, because of their symbolic weight. In Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that “[b]ecause the engagement ring is a conditional gift, when the condition is not fulfilled the ring or its value should be returned to the donor no matter who broke the engagement or caused it to be broken.” Id. at 139. That is, a -5- Salens v. Tubbs No. 06-2194 “determination of who owns the engagement ring following termination of the engagement does not require a determination of which party was at fault.” Id. at 137. The district court thus properly determined that the Estate is entitled to recover the engagement ring or its $7,274.42 value from Tubbs as a matter of Michigan law.