Kansas Court Tells Ex-Fiancee No ‘I Do’ Means No Ring, Too

Emily Post says the ring goes back if the engagement is broken. So does the Kansas Supreme Court.

Only in “extremely gross and rare” situations - which the justices did not define - would an engagement ring lawfully remain with the recipient when the wedding is called off, the high court said in a 5-2 ruling Thursday.

The ruling came in a case brought by Jerod Heiman, 30, a commodities broker in Wichita who proposed to Heather Parrish, 27, in 1994. He gave her a $9,000 gold and diamond ring.

A year later, he broke the engagement. When Miss Parrish refused to return the ring, he sued. A judge sided with him, and she appealed.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said an engagement ring becomes the property of the recipient only when the marriage occurs. The dissenters said under any legal standard, Parrish should have been allowed to keep the ring.

“Why should Jerod be rewarded for having broken the engagement contract?” said appeals Judge Christel Marquardt, who replaced one of the justices on the panel.

The ruling was in line with good manners.

“The etiquette books say that if the engagement’s off, the ring goes back to whoever proposed,” said wedding planner Lyn Scardina. “It’s just like putting a down payment on something.”

Emily Post’s etiquette book advises: “In the unfortunate event of a broken engagement, the ring and all other gifts of value must be returned to the former fiance.”

The case represented the first time Kansas’ highest court dealt with the question. The only other related precedent - an 1885 ruling - involved a farmer tricked out of property, but not a ring, by a promise of marriage.