Campbell v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 09 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 4969.,4969.
• Citation: 726 S.E.2d 221,398 S.C. 12
• Parties: Matthew CAMPBELL, Appellant/Respondent, v. Ashley ROBINSON, Respondent/Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

398 S.C. 12

726 S.E.2d 221

Matthew CAMPBELL, Appellant/Respondent,

v.Ashley ROBINSON, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 4969.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 5, 2011.

Decided May 9, 2012.

David Alexander, of Greenville, for Appellant/Respondent.

Kenneth C. Porter, of Greenville, for Respondent/Appellant.

THOMAS, J.

These cross appeals arise out of a broken engagement between Matthew Campbell and Ashley Robinson. Campbell appeals the trial court's (1) denial of his motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and (2) overruling of his objections to the jury charge and verdict form. Robinson appeals the trial court's denial of her post-trial motions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Campbell proposed and presented a ring to Robinson in December 2005. In a spring 2006 phone conversation, they agreed to postpone the wedding. The engagement was later cancelled, and a dispute ensued over ownership of the ring.

Campbell filed suit against Robinson, demanding a jury trial and 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 Robinsonreceived while possessing the ring. Robinson answered and raised a counterclaim for breach of promise to marry, arguing she was entitled to damages for her prenuptial expenditures, mental anguish, and injury to health.

At trial, Robinson testified the engagement ended simply because Campbell cancelled it. She also testified that after the engagement was cancelled, she asked Campbell twice whether she should return the ring. She maintained that Campbell, in response to her inquiries, said she should keep the ring. Campbell testified that he gave Robinson the ring believing they would get married. He denied ending the engagement by himself and contended the cancellation was mutual. He also denied telling Robinson that she should keep the ring. He contended Robinson refused to give him the ring after he asked for its return.¹

Campbell moved for directed verdict on Robinson's action for breach of promise to marry, arguing South Carolina no longer recognizes the claim. He also moved for directed verdict on his claims, maintaining he was entitled to the ring because the ring was a gift conditioned upon the marriage. Robinson moved for directed verdict on all of the parties' causes of action. The trial court held (1) South Carolina has not abolished actions for breach of promise to marry and (2) South Carolina courts hinge entitlement to the ring upon who was “at fault” in the engagement's cancellation. Consequently, the trial court explained that Campbell would receive the ring if Robinson was at fault in terminating the engagement. If Campbell was at fault, Robinson would keep the ring, and if Campbell breached the promise to marry, Robinson could recover damages. The trial court rejected Campbell's argument that he could recover damages on his claims.

The trial court charged the jury consistent with the above explanation and provided a verdict form asking the jury to determine which “party was responsible for the termination of the contract to marry.” The court then overruled Campbell's jury charge and verdict form objections, which were based upon the same grounds he raised at the directed verdict stage. The jury found that Campbell was responsible for the termination of the engagement but also found that Robinson was not entitled to any damages. Campbell moved for JNOV or a new trial absolute. Robinson moved for JNOV and “a new trial on the sole issue of damages,” arguing the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict. The trial court denied the motions, and this appeal followed.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Did the trial court err in denying Campbell's motion for directed verdict on Robinson's breach of promise to marry action?

2. Did the trial court err in denying Campbell's motions for directed verdict and JNOV on his claims?

3. Did the trial court err in overruling Campbell's objections to the jury charge and verdict form?

4. Did the trial court err in denying Robinson's post-trial motions for her breach of promise to marry action?

CAMPBELL'S APPEAL

I. The Action for Breach of Promise to Marry

Campbell argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on Robinson's breach of promise to marry action because South Carolina courts no longer recognize the claim. He acknowledges our supreme court in Bradley v. Somers, 283 S.C. 365, 322 S.E.2d 665 (1984), explicitly refused to eliminate promise to marry claims. Id. at 368–69, 322 S.E.2d at 667. However, he maintains Russo v. Sutton, 310 S.C. 200, 422 S.E.2d 750 (1992), effectively overruled Bradley because it established a policy disfavoring “heart balm” actions. We disagree.

Certain heart balm actions similar to breach of promise to marry claims have been abolished. See Russo, 310 S.C. at 204–05, 205 n. 5, 422 S.E.2d at 753, 753 n. 5 (abolishing the heart balm action for alienation of affection and recognizing our legislature abolished the heart balm action for criminal conversation); Heape v. Heape, 335 S.C. 420, 424, 517 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct.App.1999) (noting Russo's holding as to alienation of affection and the legislature's action as to criminal conversation). However, promise to marry actions have not been expressly abolished, and we may not overrule supreme court precedent such as Bradley.SeeS.C. Const. art. V § 9 (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind the Court of Appeals as precedents.”). Consequently, we affirm the denial of Campbell's directed verdict motion.

II. Directed Verdict and JNOV

Campbell contends the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and JNOV because the trial court hinged ownership of the ring upon who was at fault in the engagement's cancellation. We agree that fault does not determine ownership of the ring but affirm the denial of Campbell's motions.²

“When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict or JNOV,” we must “view the evidence and inferences that reasonably can be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Pridgen v. Ward, 391 S.C. 238, 243, 705 S.E.2d 58, 61 (Ct.App.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will reverse the trial court's ruling only “when there is no evidence to support the ruling or when the ruling is controlled by an error of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

An engagement ring by its very nature is a symbol of the donor's continuing devotion to the donee. Once an engagement is cancelled, the ring no longer holds that significance. See, e.g., Heiman v. Parrish, 262 Kan. 926, 942 P.2d 631, 634 (1997); McIntire v. Raukhorst, 65 Ohio App.3d 728, 585 N.E.2d 456, 457–58 (1989); Lindh v. Surman, 560 Pa. 1, 742 A.2d 643, 645 (1999); Brown v. Thomas, 127 Wis.2d 318, 379 N.W.2d 868, 872 (1985), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Koestler v. Pollard, 162 Wis.2d 797, 471 N.W.2d 7, 9 n. 4 (1991); 38A C.J.S. Gifts § 41 (2011). Thus, if a party presents evidence a ring was given in contemplation of marriage, the ring is an engagement ring. As an engagement ring, the gift is impliedly conditioned upon the marriage taking place. Until the condition underlying the gift is fulfilled, the attempted gift is unenforceable and must be returned to the donor upon the donor's request. Cf. Watkins v. Hodge, 232 S.C. 245, 249, 101 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1958) (“[T]he only reasonable inference is that there was not a gift.... In common parlance, to be legally binding a gift must have no strings attached, such as admittedly existed in this case.”); Lynch v. Lynch, 201 S.C. 130, 137, 146, 21 S.E.2d 569, 572, 576 (1942) (“[A] gift to be operative must be executed and must take effect immediately and irrevocably, for the obvious reason that if anything remains to be done the title to the property does not pass.... Thus, mere intention to give without delivery is unavailing; the intention must be executed by a complete and unconditional delivery.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The person challenging the assertions that the ring is an engagement ring and therefore impliedly conditioned upon marriage has the burden of presenting evidence to overcome those assertions. This burden may be satisfied by presenting evidence showing that the ring was not given in contemplation of marriage—it was not an engagement ring—or was not conditioned upon the marriage. If the parties do not dispute that the ring was originally an engagement ring conditioned upon the marriage, the burdenmay also be satisfied by presenting evidence establishing the ring subsequently became the challenger's property. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Smith, 37 Ga.App. 781, 141 S.E. 917, 917 (1928) (recognizing that a conditional gift of an engagement ring could become an absolute gift after the engagement was cancelled).

Jurisdictions differ on whether ownership of an engagement ring may be based upon fault in the breakup. Courts that do consider fault generally reason that it is unfair for a person to retain the fruit of a broken promise.³ In contrast, courts with a “no-fault” approach often base their decision upon the abolishment of heart balm actions, adoption of no-fault divorce, desire to limit courtroom dramatics, and reduction of the difficulty in determining the issue of what constitutes fault in the decline of a relationship.⁴

We hold that the consideration of fault has no place in determining ownership of an engagement ring. Generally, gift law will dictate who has the legal right to the ring.

In other contexts, the culpability of one's conduct is determined by legal standards such as the reasonable person. See, e.g., Berberich v. Jack, 392 S.C. 278, 287, 709 S.E.2d 607, 612 (2011) (“[N]egligence is the failure to use due care, i.e., that degree of care which a person of...