Fontanarosa v. Connors, 2021 Ohio 2346

Background

In Nov. 2012 Fontanarosa purchased a diamond engagement ring and wedding band for $36,295 and gave the ring to Connors with a marriage proposal in Mar. 2013; at that time Fontanarosa was still legally married to another woman (divorce final Oct. 2017).
In Oct. 2015 Fontanarosa bought a house for $395,000, funded entirely by him (cashier's checks); the recorded warranty deed (Oct. 16, 2015) named Fontanarosa and Connors as joint tenants with survivorship.
In 2015 there was an alleged incident of domestic violence; while separated the parties executed a notarized document in which Fontanarosa stated he "relinquish[ed] all rights" to the engagement ring so Connors could use sale proceeds to reestablish herself financially; they later reconciled and the ring was never sold.
The parties later separated and Connors obtained a civil protection order (Dec. 2017). Fontanarosa sued for partition (seeking 100% of house proceeds) and recovery of the rings; Connors counterclaimed that the rings and an interest in the house were gifts.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment awarding Fontanarosa 100% of the house proceeds and tried the ring claim to a magistrate, who found both parties had "unclean hands" and left the rings with Connors; the trial court overruled objections and entered judgment for Connors on the rings.
On appeal the Seventh District rejected the magistrate's unclean-hands reasoning but affirmed the outcome as legally correct because of the notarized relinquishment; it also affirmed the summary-judgment award of the house proceeds to Fontanarosa based on uncontroverted evidence he paid the entire purchase price.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fontanarosa)	Defendant's Argument (Connors)	Held
Whether Fontanarosa could recover the engagement/wedding rings (unclean-hands / unjust enrichment)	Ring was given in contemplation of marriage; court erred applying unclean hands; Connors is equally culpable so should not keep ring	Acceptance of proposal from a married man and conduct supports equitable defense; ring was gifted or otherwise retained by Connors	Court held unclean-hands doctrine did not apply (both knew status), but affirmed judgment for Connors on the alternate legal ground that Fontanarosa executed a notarized relinquishment of rights to the ring
Whether summary judgment awarding Fontanarosa 100% interest in proceeds of the house was proper (partition/survivorship deed)	Fontanarosa paid 100% of purchase price and all improvements; intended survivorship disposition but did not intend to give Connors an ownership interest proportional to contribution	Deed naming both creates presumption of equal ownership; placement of name can constitute an irrevocable gift or at least raises factual issues about intent	Affirmed summary judgment for Fontanarosa: rebuttable presumption of equal ownership was overcome by uncontroverted evidence he funded purchase and improvements; Connors’ contradictory, self-serving statements did not create a genuine issue of material fact

Key Cases Cited

Patterson v. Blanton, 109 Ohio App.3d 349 (10th Dist. 1996) (engagement-ring given in contemplation of marriage may be recoverable by donor if marriage does not occur)
McIntire v. Raukhorst, 65 Ohio App.3d 728 (9th Dist. 1989) (same principle on engagement-ring recovery)
Lyle v. Durham, 16 Ohio App.3d 1 (1st Dist. 1984) (same principle on engagement-ring recovery)
State ex rel. Coughlin v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 995 N.E.2d 1194 (Ohio 2013) (describing unclean-hands/ equitable-defense requirements)
Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (moving party summary-judgment burden and burden-shifting framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
Bryan v. Looker, 94 Ohio App.3d 228 (3d Dist. 1994) (partition: rebuttable presumption of equal interests when deed is silent)
Spector v. Giunta, 405 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (unequal contributions can rebut presumption of equal ownership)
Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 617 N.E.2d 1129 (Ohio 1993) (trial courts should award summary judgment with caution)