912 N.E.2d 272 (Ill. App. 2009)
James B. Carroll and Alison E. Curry ended their romantic relationship in 2005 after Carroll proposed to Curry in late April 2000 and presented her with an engagement ring that he had purchased.1 Carroll moved into Curry's residence some months after the engagement.2 On November 16, 2005, Curry accused Carroll of infidelity and ordered him to leave her home, after which both parties considered the engagement terminated.3
Following the termination of the relationship, Carroll filed a two-count replevin action against Curry.4 Count I sought return of the engagement ring, and Count II sought other personal property including a plasma television and audio equipment.5 Carroll made no presuit demand for the ring.6
The trial court granted summary judgment to Carroll on count I on April 18, 2007.7 The trial court nonsuited count II with prejudice.8 The trial court denied Curry's motion to reconsider.9 Curry appealed the judgment as to count I.10
In her appeal, Curry contended that the trial court should have considered fault in the termination of the engagement and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Carroll's alleged infidelity.11
Whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff by utilizing a no-fault approach to determine which party was entitled to possession of the engagement ring?12
The replevin statute, 735 ILCS 5/19-101 et seq., creates a strict legal proceeding to test the right of possession of personal property; a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of superior right to possession and that the defendant wrongfully detains the property.13 Gifts given in contemplation of marriage are conditional on the subsequent marriage occurring, so that the party who fails to perform on the condition has no right to retain the property.14
No. The trial court correctly declined to consider fault because the plain language of the replevin statute contains no reference to fault or equitable considerations of blame for ending an engagement.15 In the established facts, Carroll alone purchased the ring and presented it to Curry solely to propose marriage; the parties never married; and Curry terminated the engagement by accusing Carroll of infidelity and ordering him to leave her home on November 16, 2005.16 These facts establish that the condition attached to the gift was never fulfilled, so Carroll proved his superior right to immediate possession and Curry's wrongful detention as a matter of law.17
The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on count I.18
Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff committed acts of infidelity while he and the defendant were engaged?
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c).19
No. Alleged infidelity is not a material fact under the replevin statute because fault plays no role in determining the right to possession of a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage.20 The established facts demonstrate that the engagement ended without marriage and that Curry intended to terminate it when she ordered Carroll to leave, satisfying the statutory elements regardless of the underlying reason for the breakup.21
No genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's alleged infidelity.22