Albinger v. Harris

Supreme Court of Montana · 2002 · Property

Propertyengagement ringgift lawinter vivos giftconditional giftunconditional giftantenuptial giftsbreach of promise to marry

Facts

Albinger gave Harris a diamond ring when he proposed marriage, and both parties referred to it as an engagement ring. The couple repeatedly separated and reconciled, and the ring passed back and forth during the relationship, but they never married; after their final separation Harris kept the ring. Albinger sued to recover the ring or its value and also sought reimbursement for about $1,000 in phone charges Harris incurred on his credit card. Harris counterclaimed for injuries from a 1997 assault in which Albinger beat her and forcibly removed the ring.

Issue

Whether, under Montana law, an engagement ring given in contemplation of marriage is an impliedly conditional gift that the donor may revoke if the marriage does not occur. The court also considered whether Albinger was entitled to reimbursement for phone charges and whether Harris was properly awarded general damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

Rule

Under Montana law, an inter vivos gift is complete when there is donative intent, voluntary delivery, and acceptance, and a completed gift made without condition is irrevocable upon acceptance. Montana law does not recognize a judicially implied category of conditional gifts for engagement rings; the only revocable gift recognized is a gift in view of death. In antenuptial gift disputes, judicial fault-finding is irrelevant absent fraud or deceit.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Billings, Montana, Noah Mercer proposed to Elena Ruiz and handed her a sapphire ring, saying, "I want you to have this." Elena accepted and wore it for six months. The engagement later ended, and Noah sued to recover the ring, arguing that everyone understands such rings are conditioned on marriage.

Under the majority rule stated in this case, who is entitled to the ring?

Explanation. The majority held that Montana gift law requires donative intent, voluntary delivery, and acceptance. When those elements are present and no express condition is attached, the gift is complete and irrevocable upon acceptance. Montana courts do not judicially imply a condition of marriage onto an engagement ring simply because it was given in contemplation of marriage, and fault is irrelevant absent fraud or deceit.