726 S.E.2d 221
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Engagement between Campbell and Robinson began with a December 2005 engagement and ring gift; they later postponed the wedding in spring 2006 and canceled the engagement; ownership of the ring became disputed.
- Campbell sued Robinson seeking declaratory judgment of ownership, recovery of the ring or its value, claim-and-delivery, and restitution for any benefit Robinson retained while possessing the ring; Robinson counterclaimed for breach of promise to marry and related damages.
- At trial Robinson testified the engagement ended due to Campbell’s cancellation, and that Campbell told her to keep the ring after cancellation; Campbell testified the engagement was canceled by both sides and that he gave the ring with the intent to marry.
- The trial court held that a ring given in contemplation of marriage is an engagement ring conditioned on marriage, and ownership could hinge on fault in the breakup; the court instructed the jury accordingly and allowed a fault-based verdict form.
- The jury found Campbell was responsible for termination but awarded Robinson no damages; Campbell sought JNOV and Robinson sought post-trial relief, with the court ultimately affirming some claims and reversing/remanding others.
- This appeal culminates in a partial affirmance, partial reversal, and remand for new trial on Campbell’s declaratory judgment and claim-and-delivery claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the breach-of-promise-to-marry claim still viable in South Carolina law? | Campbell argues the claim is abolished and should have been directed verdict. | Robinson contends the claim remains viable and supports damages. | Breach of promise to marry remains viable; not abolished. |
| Should ownership of the ring be determined by fault in the breakup? | Campbell asserts fault should determine ownership. | Robinson argues fault-based ownership is appropriate. | Fault cannot determine ownership; ownership governed by gift/engagement-ring rules; however, fault-based verdict form used at trial was flawed. |
| Was the jury instruction/verdict form properly framed around fault and gift status? | Campbell alleges instructions mischaracterized the gift as conditional only and tied ownership to fault. | Robinson defends the instruction as consistent with trial theory. | Verdict form and jury charge were erroneous and prejudiced Campbell; new trial ordered on certain claims. |
| Did the trial court err in denying Robinson’s post-trial motions regarding damages? | Robinson's post-trial motions regarding damages affirmed; issues limited to damages theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. Somers, 283 S.C. 365 (1984) (whether to abolish breach of promise actions; court declined to abolish)
- Russo v. Sutton, 310 S.C. 200 (1992) (no-fault/heart balm considerations; no automatic abolition of promise to marry)
- Heiman v. Parrish, 262 Kan. 926 (1997) (recognizing no-fault approach and conditional gift concepts in engagement rings)
- Worrell v. Lathan, 324 S.C. 368 (1996) (gift becomes absolute when conditional elements dissolved; delivery/intent issues)
- Hawkins v. Smith, 37 Ga.App. 781 (1928) (recognition of conditional engagement-ring gifts becoming absolute)
- Smith v. Johnson, 223 S.C. 64 (1953) (delivery concepts in gifts related to engagements)
- Watkins v. Hodge, 232 S.C. 245 (1958) (gift requires immediate/irrevocable transfer absent strings)
- Lynch v. Lynch, 201 S.C. 130 (1942) (gift delivery doctrine and donative intent)
- Berberich v. Jack, 392 S.C. 278 (2011) (abuse of jury instructions standard; prejudice standard)