RODGER LINDH, V. JANIS SURMAN, APLT. (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-35-99] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT RODGER LINDH, Appellee v. JANIS SURMAN, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 39 W.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered October 6, 1997 at 0524PGH96, affirming the Order entered March 11, 1996 of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. AR 0318394 702 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. CT 1997) ARGUED: March 8, 1999 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 The majority advocates that a strict no-fault policy be applied to broken engagements. In endorsing this view, the majority argues that it is not only the modern trend but also the approach which will eliminate the inherent weaknesses of a fault based analysis. According to the majority, by adopting a strict no fault approach, we will remove from the courtroom the necessity of delving into the inter-personal dynamics of broken engagements in order to decide which party retains possession of the engagement ring. This view brings to mind the words of Thomas Campbell from The Jilted Nymph: Better be courted and jilted than never be courted at all. As I cannot endorse this approach, I respectfully dissent. An engagement ring is a traditional token of the pledge to marry. It is a symbol of nuptial intent dating back to AD 860. The engagement ring was to be of a valued metal representing a financial sacrifice for the husband to be. Two other customs regarding the engagement ring were established in that same century: forfeiture of the ring by a man who reneged on a marriage pledge; surrender of the ring by the woman who broke off an engagement. See Charles Panati, Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things (copyright 1987). This concept is consistent with conditional gift law, which has always been followed in Pennsylvania. Stanger v. Epler, 115 A.2d 197 (Pa. 1955); Ruehling v. Hornung, 98 Pa. Super. 535 (1925); C.J.S. Gifts ยง 61. When the marriage does not take place the agreement is void and the party who prevented the marriage agreement from being fulfilled must forfeit the engagement ring. Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 136 A.2d 127 (Pa. 1957). The majority urges adoption of its position to relieve trial courts from having the onerous task of sifting through the debris of the broken engagement in order to ascertain who is truly at fault and if there lies a valid justification excusing fault. Could not this theory justifying the majority s decision be advanced in all other arenas that our trial courts must venture? Are broken engagements truly more disturbing than cases where we ask judges and juries to discern possible abuses in nursing homes, day care centers, dependency proceedings involving abused children, and criminal cases involving horrific, irrational injuries to innocent victims? The subject matter our able trial courts address on a daily basis is certainly of equal sordidness as any fact pattern they may need to address in a simple case of who broke the engagement and why. I can envision a scenario whereby the prospective bride and her family have expended thousands of dollars in preparation for the culminating event of matrimony and she is, through no fault of her own, left standing at the altar holding the caterer s bill. To add insult to injury, the majority would also strip her of her engagement ring. Why the [J-35-99] - 2 majority feels compelled to modernize this relatively simple and ancient legal concept is beyond the understanding of this poor man. Accordingly, as I see no valid reason to forgo the established precedent in Pennsylvania for determining possession of the engagement ring under the simple concept of conditional gift law, I cannot endorse the modern trend advocated by the majority. Respectfully, I dissent. Messrs. Justice Castille and Saylor join this dissenting opinion. [J-35-99] - 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
