MCGREGOR
SOMETIMES THE love takes a long time to go, and by then most of the wedding gifts might have been used or discarded. But, when the love curds while the wedding cake is still fresh, and the ink has not yet dried on the Thank You cards, who should get the wedding gifts? Should the "newly-split" share the bounty equally or should the gifts be returned to the donors?
WHY GIVE WEDDING GIFTS?
The reason for giving wedding gifts is usually to assist a young couple to establish a firm economic foundation. The choice of a suitable bridal registry is quite often the young couple's guarantee to get the gifts they desire. For more mature couples, who had already cohabited prior to marriage, monetary gifts are the popular option. Those who are higher on the totem pole (e.g. Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles) may politely refuse all gifts.
What is true is that no matter how elaborate the ceremony or how magnificent the gifts, some marriages don't survive past the church door. Some gifts may not be unwrapped before the bags get packed for the move from "Blissville" to "Splitsville". The generous donors, who stood with full hearts along both sides of the church aisle and cheered along the "newly-hitched," are left with empty pockets as each party makes the lonely trek down the walkway and away from the matrimonial home.
THE LAW - HOW COUPLES SHOULD SHARE GIFTS
Traditionally, issues relating to the division of the wedding gifts do not enter the public domain. However, a judge actually had to determine the issue as to who has the right to the wedding gifts. The case of Samson v Samson was heard by the English Court of Appeal in 1908. The court ruled that, contrary to popular belief, there is no presumption at common law that wedding presents are joint gifts to both spouses.
It was also held that, while there is no specific legal principle which is applicable to wedding gifts, generally, gifts must be considered with reference to the intention of the donor. Therefore, a court will be guided by the intention of the donor in deciding whether the wife or the husband is entitled to the gift, if that intention is clear. However, where the intention is not clear, the court is entitled to infer that money and gifts in kind which originated from the wife's side of the family were intended for her and that money and gifts from the other side were intended for the husband.
If only life were that simple . . . Despite the fact that a gift might have been intended for one spouse, the court may determine that it has become joint property based on the subsequent conduct of the parties. This, of course, presupposes that the marriage made it past the church doors.
SHOULD THE DONOR GET THE GIFT BACK?
Unfortunately, I did not unearth any legal principle to answer the question as to whether the "newly-split" should return the gifts to the donors in the event of a premature separation. Opinions vary on the point, as some writers are firmly of the view that the unused gifts (especially money) should be returned, and that the couple should repay their parents for the cost of the wedding. However, if the gift was not given on condition that the marriage should last, what right would the donor have to claim it once the parties separate?
In the end, the answer to this question appears to be a matter of social etiquette and not law, so you decide ...
Sherry-Ann McGregor is an attorney-at-law and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co. Send feedback to lawsofeve@yahoo.com.
Editors note: Congratulations to Flair's Sherry-Ann McGregor who is now a partner in the law firm NSD.
