Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P proposed and presented a ring to D in December 2005. In spring 2006, they agreed to postpone the wedding. The engagement was later canceled, and a dispute ensued over ownership of the ring. P sued seeking (1) declaratory judgment that he owned the ring and was entitled to the ring's return or equivalent value; (2) claim and delivery of the ring, plus damages for the ring's wrongful retention; and (3) restitution for the benefit D received while possessing the ring. D counterclaimed for breach of promise to marry, arguing she was entitled to damages for her prenuptial expenditures, mental anguish, and injury to health. D testified the engagement ended simply because P canceled it. She also testified that after the engagement was canceled, she asked P twice whether she should return the ring. She maintained that P, in response to her inquiries, said she should keep the ring. P denied ending the engagement by himself and contended the cancellation was mutual. He also denied telling D that she should keep the ring. P contended D refused to give him the ring after he asked for its return. The jury found that P was responsible for the termination of the engagement but also found that D was not entitled to any damages. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.