Monica Malpass

After an engagement that lasted less than a month, the ex-fiancé of a Philadelphia TV news anchor has sued her for the return of a very expensive “conditional gift” -- a $78,000 diamond engagement ring.

Stephen Thorne, an auto-parts dealer, believes he is entitled to recover the 5.06 carat rock under a “bright line rule” of Pennsylvania common law. But Monica Malpass of WPIV-TV has allegedly refused to return it since he “unequivocally” advised her in January that they would not be getting married.

“The ring was a conditional gift made to Malpass,” Thorne says in a complaint filed in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas last month. “The condition for the making of the gift, marriage, did not occur and will not occur in the future.”

According to the suit, Thorne, 52, actually broke up with Malpass, 45, in July 2006, but -- to spare her “undue public embarrassment as a result of the breakup of such a short engagement” -- agreed she could keep the ring until she was “'comfortable' with the public's perception of her broken engagement.

Once he sensed Malpass had become comfortable, the chivalrous Thorne asked her several times to return the ring. Now his patience has apparently run out and he is willing to subject her to the public embarrassment of a suit for “replevin” (recovery of personal property claimed to be unlawfully taken) and unjust enrichment.

Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent of Lindh v. Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (1999), the giving of an engagement ring is conditional on performance of a marriage ceremony, not acceptance of a marriage proposal, and the donor may recover it no matter who is at fault for the breakup.

In a similar case filed in 2005, a Pennsylvania woman argued she was not liable for selling her $35,000 engagement ring because her ex-fiancé had presented it to her in the fulfilment of a contract. The case of Mele v. Grace settled before a judge could rule on that defense.

Thorne alleges his ex is also trying to find a way round Lindh. Citing a letter he wrote her shortly after he first called off the engagement,

Malpass apparently contends that Thorne's sensitivity to her feelings about the brevity of the engagement converted the engagement ring into an unconditional gift.

The donor of an unconditional gift has no expectation of receiving anything in return. Whatever was in his letter, Thorne says he expected Malpass would

either (a) give back the ring, (b) give back the ring after receiving some amount of money from Thorne or (c) sell the ring and give some or all of the proceeds to Thorne.

Lindh was a close case, decided on a 4-3 vote with one of the dissenters saying "fairness dictates" that the innocent party in an "ill-fated romantic connection" should retain the engagement ring. Thorne, a divorced father of two, says he jilted Malpass after changing his mind about wanting to have children with her.

Pennsylvania State Sen. Joe Conti reacted to the Mele case by saying he would draft legislation to educate couples about the implications of Lindh. But he has yet to introduce a bill.

By Matthew Heller
3/6/07

With New Yorkers already banned from smoking and eating trans-fatty foods in restaurants, you'd think the courts would give them a break and finally abolish a Prohibition-era restriction on social dancing. But alas, no judicial relief appears to be in sight.

A New York appeals court last month affirmed a trial judge and rejected a constitutional challenge to the 1926 law, which requires bars and restaurants to be licensed as a cabaret before three or more patrons can dance. Mayor Rudy Giuliani stepped up enforcement in the late 1990s as part of his campaign to clean up the Big Apple.

“Recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions,” the Appellate Division, First Department ruled, and the challenged regulations “bear the requisite rational relation” to the legislative purpose of protecting public health, safety and welfare. Festa v. New York City

The law may seem “grossly ridiculous,” as one blogger put it, and the plaintiffs -– four social dancers and the Gotham West Coast Swing Club -- are considering an appeal to the state’s highest court. But they have so far not managed to convince a court that social dancing deserves the same heightened protection as performance dancing.

“[P]laintiffs ... offer no consistent, practical framework that would classify social dancing as expressive conduct while excluding other physical, athletic, or recreational activities that are arguably similar to social dancing,” Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Stallman said in his April 2006 decision summarily dismissing the case.

A North Carolina woman who claimed the First Amendment protected her dirty-dancing gyrations suffered a similar defeat in 2005 as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she was “not a performer in any meaningful sense.” Willis v. Town of Marshall, 426 F.3d 251

Given the legal landscape, New York dancers might be better off focusing on legislative action. Stallman suggested as much, saying, “The Big Apple is big enough to find a way to let people dance.”

But city legislators may be too preoccupied with other matters –- such as banning the use of the N-word –- to worry about accommodating social dancers.

By Corie Rosen
3/6/07