## Facts

- Michael A. Albinger and Michelle L. Harris had a volatile relationship from 1995 to 1998 marked by repeated separations, reconciliations, and violence.
- On December 14, 1995, Albinger gave Harris a diamond engagement ring worth about $29,000 (and other jewelry); the ring was repeatedly returned/reclaimed during separations and re-presented after reconciliations.
- The parties never married despite a tentative wedding date; the relationship ended permanently.
- During cohabitation, Albinger paid household expenses and gave Harris substantial gifts; Harris gave Albinger smaller items.
- During a February 1997 separation, Albinger broke into the residence where Harris was staying, threatened her with a knife, beat her with a railroad lantern, and forcibly removed the ring.
- Albinger sued in Montana district court seeking return of the ring and reimbursement for certain telephone charges; Harris sought damages for assault and battery.
- The district court treated the ring as a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage, ordered Harris to return it, denied Albinger reimbursement for telephone charges, and awarded Harris general damages for assault and battery.
- Harris appealed the ring ruling; Albinger cross-appealed the denial of telephone-charge reimbursement and the assault-and-battery damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether an engagement ring in Montana is a conditional gift revocable upon termination of the engagement, or a completed gift not recoverable by the donor absent an express condition.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Albinger reimbursement for telephone charges incurred by Harris during cohabitation.
3. Whether the district court erred in awarding Harris general damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress resulting from Albinger’s assault and battery.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the order requiring Harris to return the engagement ring.
- The Court held the ring was a completed inter vivos gift and was irrevocable absent an express condition requiring return if marriage did not occur.
- The Court affirmed the denial of reimbursement to Albinger for Harris’s telephone charges incurred during cohabitation.
- The Court affirmed the award of general damages to Harris for injuries and emotional distress from the assault and battery.

## Legal Principles

- A valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance; once complete, the gift is irrevocable absent a legally recognized condition.
- Montana does not recognize an implied legal condition that an engagement ring must be returned if the marriage does not occur; recovery requires an express condition or another recognized ground.
- Interpreting an engagement ring as consideration for a promise to marry would effectively reintroduce a breach-of-promise remedy inconsistent with Montana’s statutory policy limiting such actions (absent fraud or deceit).
- In domestic cohabitation disputes, routine living-related expenditures (such as telephone charges) may be treated as part of the parties’ financial arrangements rather than reimbursable debts absent proof of an obligation to repay.
- General damages for assault and battery may include pain, suffering, and emotional distress, and will be upheld when supported by the severity of the conduct and resulting harm.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that, absent an express return condition, an engagement ring is a completed inter vivos gift that the donor cannot reclaim solely because the engagement ends, and it affirmed both the denial of reimbursement for cohabitation-related telephone charges and the award of general damages for assault and battery.


Albinger v. Harris, 310 Mont. 27, 48 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2002)