Shannon K. Brophy, Esquire
Timothy F. Rayne, Esquire

With an estimated 19.5 million viewers watching the finale of Grey's Anatomy last month, it seems only fitting to explore the question of what happens when a couple doesn't make it to "I do." Does Dr. Yang get to keep the stunning engagement ring as a consolation prize for being left at the altar? Or will Dr. Burke be able to get a refund?

While the doctors of Seattle Grace are on their own, couples in Pennsylvania have clear direction from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In Lindh v. Surman, the high court declared an engagement ring is a gift "conditioned" on the marriage. That means if there is no marriage, then there is no gift, and the ring should revert back to the purchaser.

The Facts
In August of 1993, Rodger Lindh, a divorced middle-aged man, proposed to Janis Surman, a younger woman who had never been married. Rodger presented Janis with a diamond engagement ring that he purchased for $17,400. Rodger indicated that the actual value of the ring was $21,200 and that he got a special deal because he was a "good customer," having bought his ex-wife's ring and various other jewelry for his children from the jeweler.

Problems arose between Rodger and Janis. In October of 1993, Rodger broke off the engagement and asked Janis to return the ring. Janis obliged. Later, the two reconciled and Rodger proposed again, giving back to Janis the same ring. For a second time, Janis accepted. In March of 1994, however, Rodger called off the engagement and demanded the return of the ring. Janis refused and litigation ensued.

Arbitration and Lower Courts
In the litigation, a panel of arbitrators ruled that Janis could keep the ring. A judge of the Court of Common Pleas held otherwise, awarding Rodger a judgment of $21,200. The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the Trial Court's decision.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court
In arguing the case before the Supreme Court, the parties agreed that the engagement ring was a conditional gift. However, they disagreed on two points: (1) what was the condition of the gift (acceptance of the engagement or the marriage itself); and (2) whether fault was relevant to determining the return of the ring.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held for Rodger on both points. First, the Supreme Court decided that the gift was conditioned on the actual marriage, not just acceptance of the engagement.

Second, the Supreme Court held that a fault analysis (a determination of who was responsible for breaking off the engagement) was not appropriate. The Supreme Court reasoned that Pennsylvania, like most other states, has adopted a "no fault" system in divorce cases where a divorce can be obtained without proving "fault" by either party. The Court indicated that such a "no fault" system would be appropriate in an engagement ring case because of the difficulty of determining who was "wrong" or "right" in the breakup of the engagement. To determine who was at "fault" would require a detailed, and often nasty, inquiry into the facts surrounding the demise of the relationship and the reasons for breaking off the engagement. Rather than burdening the lower courts with such unpleasant disputes, the Supreme Court adopted a "no fault" system in which the husband-to-be is entitled to the return of the ring even if he breaks off the engagement. Therefore, in this case, Janis was forced to either return the ring or pay Rodger $21,200.

Conclusion
While the issue of who is at fault for the demise of the relationship may make for fascinating television, the high court has declared it to be none of their business. In Pennsylvania, Dr. Yang would have to give Dr. Burke back the ring. Of course, that's if she can find him.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com