Albinger v. Harris Supreme Court of Montana, 2002 Facts: In 1995, Albinger (plaintiff) and Harris (defendant) began a tumultuous, threeyear relationship. In December of that year, Albinger gave Harris a diamond ring. After some initial hesitation, Harris accepted and the parties agreed upon a wedding date. This wedding date was subsequently cancelled, with Harris returning the diamond ring to Albinger. The parties reunited soon thereafter, and Albinger gave the ring to Harris once again. The parties endured several more failed engagements, with the ring being returned to Albinger upon each separation, only to be given back promptly to Harris upon reuniting. At the parties’ final separation, Albinger insisted that Harris take all of the items he gave her, including the ring, and never return. Procedural History: Albinger later brought an action against Harris to have the ring returned. The district court determined that the ring was a conditional gift, to be completed upon the parties’ marriage. As the parties did not marry, the district court ruled that the ring should be returned to Albinger, as all of the gift’s conditions were not satisfied. Harris petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana. Issue: Is an engagement ring a conditional gift (the condition being the future marriage) that can be revoked if the engagement is later broken off? Holding: No, an engagement ring is considered a complete and irrevocable gift once the elements of intent to give, voluntariness, and acceptance of the gift are met. Reasoning: Albinger is not entitled to the engagement ring as he completed an inter vivos gift. The giving of an engagement ring is held to the same standard as other inter vivos gifts, and as such, is completed once the elements of intent to give, voluntariness, and acceptance are satisfied. The district court erred in applying the “conditional gift” theory to these circumstances in that it failed to consider the lack of remedies available to women in the event of a broken engagement. Whereas at one time a woman was able to bring an action against a man who broke an engagement, women now have little recourse in the event of an unfulfilled promise to marry. In order to balance these inequities, this court believes it is necessary to allow women to keep an engagement ring, so long as the elements of an inter vivos gift are satisfied. This balances gender inequality in that it begins to compensate women for the fixed costs they incur in preparing for a wedding, such as purchasing a dress and floral arrangements. In this case, Albinger intended to give the ring to Harris, as he had given it to her on several prior occasions. Furthermore, after their final argument, Albinger insisted that Harris leave with the engagement ring, which she did. Therefore, because the giving of an engagement ring is treated in the same manner as the giving of any other inter vivos gift, and all common law elements have been met, Harris is entitled to keep the engagement ring given to her by Albinger. Thus, the district court’s ruling is reversed. Dissent: The majority is correct in its determination that gender discrimination is improper. However, no court has held that an engagement ring is not a conditional gift that can be recovered upon the failure to meet a condition of the gift. Additionally, the issue of gender inequality was never raised by either party in the court below. As such, the district court was correct in determining that this case is one involving a conditional gift.