Legal Question in Family Law in Florida

Re: engagment ring

NOTE: This communication is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Rather, it is intended solely as a general discussion of legal principles. You should not rely on or take action based on this communication without first presenting ALL relevant details to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and then receiving the attorney's individualized advice for you. By reading the "Response" to your question or comment, you agree that the opinion expressed is not intended to, nor does it, create any attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. If you do not agree, then stop right here, and do not read any further.

In SCHILLER v. MILLER, 621 So.2d 481 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1993), the Court followed cited an earlier case wherein they stated: "In Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415, (Fla. 4th DCA

1975), we recognized that the Florida "Heart Balm" statute, now section 771.01, Florida Statutes (1991), does not preclude an action for replevin of an engagement ring. Our decision was premised on the idea that an engagement ring is a

conditional gift, one that is dependent as Judge Downey noted on

a voyage on the sea of matrimony. If the voyage never gets underway, then the gift is never perfected, and the jilted suitor may seek its return by the traditional legal remedy of replevin.

Generally, if the one who gave the gift is jilted or it is a mutual decision, he may obtain the ring back. If he decides not to marry the woman, the courts have not been clear about whether the woman should be allowed to keep the ring but I believe she might have a good chance if she was to sue for damages due to the deception as was done in your situation.

Scott R. Jay