## Facts

- Michael Curtis and Michele Anderson became engaged in summer 2000, and Curtis gave Anderson a diamond engagement ring.
- About six to eight weeks later, the engagement ended and Anderson refused to return the ring.
- Curtis claimed there was a “mutual understanding” that if the marriage did not occur, he would retain the stone.
- Curtis admitted the understanding was not in writing.
- In deposition testimony, Curtis admitted he broke off the engagement.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral agreement to return an engagement ring if marriage does not occur is unenforceable under the Texas Family Code statute of frauds as a promise made “in consideration of marriage.”
2. Whether, absent an enforceable agreement, the conditional-gift rule permits the donor to recover the engagement ring when the donor ended the engagement.
3. Whether a conversion claim can succeed where the plaintiff lacks ownership or a superior right to immediate possession of the ring.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Anderson.
- The court held the alleged oral agreement regarding return of the ring was a promise made “in consideration of marriage” and therefore had to be in writing to be enforceable.
- The court held that, absent an enforceable agreement, a donor who terminates the engagement (the defaulting party) is not entitled to recover the engagement ring under the conditional-gift rule.
- The court held Curtis could not recover for conversion because he lacked ownership or a superior right to immediate possession of the ring.

## Legal Principles

- A promise made “in consideration of marriage” is unenforceable unless it satisfies the statutory writing requirement.
- An engagement-ring return agreement tied to whether the marriage occurs is treated as a marriage-consideration agreement subject to the statute of frauds.
- The conditional-gift rule for engagement rings applies only when there is no enforceable agreement governing ownership upon failure to marry.
- Under the conditional-gift rule, the donor who is responsible for ending the engagement cannot reclaim the ring absent a valid contrary agreement.
- Conversion requires the plaintiff to prove ownership or a superior right to immediate possession; without that right, retention by the defendant is not actionable as conversion.

## Conclusion

The court held that an oral engagement-ring return agreement is barred by the marriage-consideration statute of frauds, and that a donor who ends the engagement cannot reclaim the ring under the conditional-gift rule; lacking a superior possessory right, the donor also cannot maintain a conversion claim.


Curtis v. Anderson, 106 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003)