Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PARTIES
Michael A. Albinger: Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellee
Michelle L. Harris: Defendant and Appellant
FACTS
Albinger gave Harris a diamond ring and diamond earrings on December 14, 1995
Harris returned it
Albinger sent it back
February 23, 1997- break in
Sued for personal injuries and assault
Reconciliation
Separated again April 1998
$1000 telephone charges
complaint filed
counter claim filed
PROCEDURES
August 31, 1998
8th Judicial District Court of Cascade Country, Montana
December 29th, 2000 Supreme Court of Montana
Decision
September 2, 1999 the district court awarded Albinger the value of the engagement ring
but denired recoverty of the telephone charges
Harris was awarded $2,500 for pain, suffering and emotional stress
Harris petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana
December 29, 2000 – submitted to briefs
June 6, 2002 Ruling on Albinger was reversed
Decision of a Gift
“A gift is a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without any
consideration.”
How it relates
Personal property
Inter vivos gift (between the living): donative intent, voluntary. Absolute
Causa Mortis: given in response to dying soon
ISSUES
1. Did the District Court error in determining in enagagement ring is a conditional gift that may
be revoked upon termination of the engagement?
2. Did the District Court error in denying Albinger reimbursement for telephone charges
incurred by Harris during cohabitation?
3. Did the District Court error in awarding Harris compensation for general damages resulting
from an assault and battery by Albinger?
The transfer of an engagement ring does not fall under conditional gift theory, and thus is
complete once the three elements of an inter vivos gift are met. (On again off again couple
break up and man wants the ring back.)
Conditional gift theory says that a gift that is given under a certain condition must be returned
if that condition is not satisfied. For engagement rings, can be no fault gift, in which case it is
returned if the condition, marriage, does not occur, or at fault, in which case it is only returned
if the engagement was dissolved as a result of the bride’s actions. Most jurisdictions follow a
no fault approach. The rule here is that an engagement ring is an unconditional gift, but the
rule in most states is that the gift is not absolute until the marriage ceremony. Court made its
ruling based on a gender bias concept, that women were being put in a worse position than
men because this return of a gift disproportionately affected them.