S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
BARRY MEYER, D.O.,
February 20, 2001
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-534671-CK
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(9) and (10) in favor of plaintiff. We affirm.
Plaintiff Barry Meyer, D.O., and defendant Robyn Mitnick became engaged on August 9,
1996, at which time Barry gave Robyn a custom-designed engagement ring that he purchased for
$19,500.1 On November 8, 1996, Barry asked Robyn to sign a prenuptial agreement and Robyn
refused. The parties agree that the engagement was broken during that meeting, but both Barry
and Robyn contend that the other party caused the breakup.
Robyn did not return the engagement ring after the engagement ended and Barry filed the
present action on December 2, 1996. Barry alleged that the engagement ring was a conditional
gift given in contemplation of marriage and that, because the condition of marriage did not occur,
the ring should be returned to him. Robyn filed a counter-complaint, alleging that the ring was
an unconditional gift and that, because Barry broke the engagement, she was entitled to keep the
Following a hearing on Barry’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court granted
summary disposition in favor of Barry. The court held that since an engagement ring is given in
1 For the sake of simplicity, the parties will be referred to by their first names.
2 Although not relevant to this appeal, Robyn also demanded payment for forfeited deposits made
for wedding services, and she also alleged assault and battery and intentional infliction of
contemplation of marriage, the marriage itself is a condition precedent to the ultimate ownership
of the ring. Since the parties did not perform the condition of marriage, Barry is entitled to return