spring 2010 bule 302 sample case brief

spring 2010 bule 302 sample case brief - Meyer v. Mi tnick,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Meyer v. Mitnick, (Mich. Cir. Ct. 2001) Facts: Barry Meyer and Robyn Mitnick became engaged on August 9, 1996. Barry gave Robyn a custom-designed engagement ring. He purchased the ring for $19,500. On November 8, 1996, Barry asked Robyn to sign a prenuptial agreement. Robyn refused to sign the agreement. Both Robyn and Barry agree that the “prenuptial agreement” meeting caused them to break off the engagement. Barry believes that Robyn caused the breakup and Robyn believes that Barry caused the breakup. Robyn did not return the ring to Barry. On December 2, 1996, Barry filed this action. Issue: Should the court consider fault in determining ownership of an engagement ring following the termination of an engagement? Decision: No Reasons: First, the court considered whether an engagement ring is a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage. Based upon In Re Lowe Estate , the court determined that an engagement ring is a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage. The court then considered what would happen to the ring if the condition of marriage was
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

spring 2010 bule 302 sample case brief - Meyer v. Mi tnick,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online