WINER v. WINER, 241 N.J. Super. 510 (1990) (SHEBELL, J.A.D.; Decided June 7, 1990):

Picture by Rose Davies

In this case, Defendant asserted that the engagement ring he gave plaintiff should be subject to equitable distribution. He argued that the gift of an engagement ring does not become effective until after the marriage ceremony is complete. Therefore, he maintains that the engagement ring is marital property. The court held that this argument is without merit.

An engagement ring is a conditional gift. Aronow v. Silver, 223 N.J. Super. 344, 347, 538 A.2d 851 (Ch. Div. 1987), quoting Sloin v. Lavine, 11 N.J. Misc. 899, 900, 168 A. 849 (Sup. Ct. 1933) and Albanese v. Indelicato, 25 N.J. Misc. 144, 144-45, 51 A.2d 110 (D.Ct. 1947). The condition is marriage and the ring is returnable only if the engagement is broken. See Aronow, 223 N.J. Super. at 348-50, 538 A.2d 851.

Lipton v. Lipton, 134 Misc.2d 1076, 514 N.Y.S.2d 158, 159-60 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986), a New York trial court stated:

[t]he question of the conditional nature of the gift became moot upon the marriage when the ring unconditionally became the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, the ring given prior to the marriage retains its character as separate property not subject to equitable distribution.

The N.J. court agreed with the quoted reasoning of the New York court and held that the engagement ring in question is not subject to equitable distribution.

The court rejected defendant’s argument that because the ring was given in anticipation of marriage, it is subject to equitable distribution under Weiss, 226 N.J. Super. at 287, 543 A.2d 1062. Weiss did not contemplate that an engagement ring, traditionally a conditional gift for the sole use of a woman, should be considered a “marital asset such as a house …” Ibid.

[Special thanks to Mark F. Saker, Esq. for bringing this case to my attention.]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200.