Simonian V. Donoian Case Study

950 Words4 Pages
Michele Taylor became engaged to Brian Jackson when Brian proposed and presented Michele with a large diamond engagement ring from Tiffany & Co., worth approximately $20,000. After six month of engagement, Brian wasn’t ready to be married and asked Michele for the engagement ring to be returned to him. According to California case law, does Michele has the rights to keep the engagement ring if Brian call off the engagement? In Simonian v. Donoian (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 259 [215 P.2d 119], Plaintiff, Ralph Simonian presented Mary Donoian with a diamond engagement ring and his mother gave her a diamond set wristwatch. Plaintiff filed an action for recovery of the ring and the wristwatch when the engagement was terminated. The reason for the engagement was terminated because of plaintiff father suffered an illness. Plaintiff request the Court to determined that defendant has the right or entitle to the possession of the ring and wristwatch after the engagement is terminated. The Appeal court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the defendant was the owner of and entitled to possession of the ring because Plaintiff did not present any proof…show more content…
Halsey (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 213 [251 P.2d 1008] because both parties in the case have mutual consent not to married and wait for a year. Even though defendant in the case might misled and no intention to be married with Plaintiff, both parties have verbal mutual consent not to be married and wait for a year. However, Michele, Donee was not refuse to be married with Brian. Michele and Brian didn’t have verbal or written mutual consent not to be married. In fact, Brian, donor who breach the marriage agreement, without provide strong proof why he wasn’t ready to be marry. Engagement ring was a condition gift to Michele to be married with Brian. Since Brian breach of a marriage agreement, Michele allow to keep the engagement ring under cal civ code

    More about Simonian V. Donoian Case Study

      Open Document