1. An engagement ring is a conditional gift, given in contemplation of marriage; marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title to the ring, and the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs.
II. When two parties engaged to be married decide to abandon their plans for future marriage, the engagement ring shall be returned to the donor regardless of fault."
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of respondent on appellant's claims under Minn. Stat § 363.01, subd. 41(1) and (2) (2000), because appellant failed to establish her prima facie case.
The district court did err, however, in granting summary judgment on appellant's alleged violation of Minn. Stat. § 363.01, subd. 41(3) (2000), because appellant established that the question of whether an illegitimate reason "more likely than not" motivated respondent's decision to terminate her employment creates a material fact issue for trial.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on respondent's replevin counterclaim for the engagement ring.
"Pro se appellant William
H. Otis brought this suit against respondent Dona E. Conway in 2002 after their engagement was cancelled.
Appellant sought recovery of certain personal property, including a diamond engagement ring and compensation for services he provided to respondent in the form of tax work.
Appellant alleged that the property and services were not gifts to respondent, but given in anticipation of the marriage.
Following a one-day trial, the district court issued detailed findings and conclusions.
In particular, the court concluded that the tax services rendered, cash advances, furniture bought, and bills paid were not gifts made in contemplation of marriage.
The court further concluded that appellant failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent owes him money or that she continues to possess the engagement ring.
The district court dismissed appellant's complaint and amended complaint with prejudice.
The court also denied appellant's motions to reconsider and for a new trial.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's posttrial motions, we affirm."
Please suggest a new category, a new item for this category, or improved categorization. Tell us about dead and changed links!
We hope you find our Public Edition to be useful.
But we want you to know that our best and most useful material is provided only by subscription./p>
Our Enhanced Subscriber Edition turns you into a far more efficient, more effective user of the vast legal and governmental resources scattered across the Web as well as those that comprise the heart of Minnesota-specific legal and governmental resources and law-practice related knowledge.
Call us or contact us through the site to learn how your firm or organization can put the full power of our Minnesota Law Practice WebSM at your service.
Powered by LawsaurusTM expert support system software from Pritchard Law Webs.