BROKEN ENGAGEMENT: WHO GETS TO KEEP THE ENGAGEMENT RING WHEN ONE PARTY IS STILL MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE

In Campbell v. Tang, a recent Superior Court of Pennsylvania decision, the Court issued a precedential decision on whether an engagement ring should be returned to the giver or if it should stay with the recipient, when the person proposing marriage is discovered to still be married to someone else.

In this case, Campbell and Tang met on an online dating site where Campbell represented himself as “divorced.” The parties began dating and then moved in together. Approximately 10 months later, Campbell proposed to Tang and presented her with a diamond engagement ring, diamond pendant necklace and matching diamond earrings. Tang accepted the proposal and jewelry.

The parties were to be married on May 12, 2018. Campbell asked Tang to sign a prenuptial agreement and she retained counsel to assist her with the negotiations. Approximately one week before the wedding date, Tang’s counsel discovered that Campbell was not actually divorced and was still legally married to his wife. Tang ended the engagement and left their residence and kept the jewelry presented to her during Campbell’s proposal.

In July of 2018, Campbell sued Tang for replevin, unjust enrichment, and conversion, asking for the return of the ring, necklace, and earrings. Tang counterclaimed on the basis of fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The matter went to trial where Campbell admitted that he did not tell Tang that he was still married because “it was a personal thing” and that he “didn’t think it was that important.” He explained that his divorce proceedings had begun, but it was not finalized in order to allow his wife to keep receiving medical benefits. He admitted he didn’t tell Tang that he was not divorced before he proposed to her and that he knew he could not apply for a marriage license to marry Tang because he did not have a final divorce decree. Tang testified she did not find out Campbell was still married until her counsel learned of it one week before the wedding date. A decision was entered in favor of Tang in Campbell’s suit and in favor of Campbell in Tang’s suit. This decision allowed Tang to keep the jewelry.

The Court stated that “Pennsylvania has long held that an engagement ring or other gift given in contemplation of marriage is a conditional gift which does not vest until the contemplated marriage occurs and must be returned to the donor if either party breaks the engagement. See Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643, 644 (Pa. 1999).” However, this Court has to determine whether the rule applies when the donor of an engagement gift lacks the capacity to contract to marry at the time of the proposal and at all times during the purported engagement.

Marriage is a civil contract in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and both parties must have the capacity to marry, if either party is already married, any subsequent marriage is absolutely void. See Watt Estate, 185 A.2d 781, 785-86 (Pa. 1962). The Court found that Campbell at the time of the proposal and all times during the engagement did not have the capacity to enter into marriage with Tang. As such, the purported engagement is void ab initio, and any gift given in contemplation of the purported engagement constitutes an unconditional gift.

Since the proposal was deemed to be void ab initio, Campbell’s gifts of the ring, necklace, and earrings were not conditioned on the act of marriage and therefore constitute unconditional gifts that Tang is not required to return to Campbell.