Ever wonder who is legally entitled to an engagement ring when love sours?
The rules of engagement are about to be tested in the County Court of Victoria, where builder Constantinos Hatzis is demanding his former fiancee Anastasia Soulios return a two-carat diamond ring and other jewellery worth more than $100,000.
Con Hatzis and former fiancee Anastasia Soulios.
However, Soulios has claimed in defence documents that Hatzis was unfaithful during their two-year relationship and repeatedly subjected her to abuse, which absolves her of any legal obligation to hand back the ring.
Soulios has also made a counter-claim against Hatzis to return a $9500 TAG Heuer watch she claims she gave to him in July 2022 as an “engagement gift in contemplation of marriage”.
A County Court judge could ultimately be required to resolve the bitter stoush, unless the estranged couple can settle the dispute before trial.
On February 14, Hatzis filed a writ in the County Court alleging he began a relationship with Soulios in early 2020, before proposing in March 2022.
The diamond pear halo engagement ring.
Hatzis claims to have presented his future bride with the “diamond pear halo ring”, along with diamond earrings and a bracelet, which were valued at $101,035, according to the writ.
“Hatzis gave Soulios the goods on the implied condition that Soulios would keep them safely and return them to Hatzis on demand in the event they did not marry,” the writ states.
He claims the relationship ended in April 2022, before a representative of Soulios informed him in July 2023 that the engagement ring and other jewellery would not be returned.
But Soulios, according to her statement of defence, has a different version of events, and insists she is entitled to the jewellery.
Constantinos Hatzis and the watch he got as an engagement gift.
She alleges in court documents that the couple resumed their relationship in May 2022, but she ended the engagement three months later because of Hatzis’ repeated infidelity during their relationship.
“The plaintiff is not entitled to demand the return of the engagement ring as the non-fulfillment of the agreement to marry was caused by the plaintiff ... and that he cannot rely upon his own conduct to complain of the non-fulfilment of the condition of marriage,” according to a defence statement filed by Soulios’ lawyer.
Soulios claims the bracelet and earrings were unconditional gifts that she received on Christmas Day 2021, which was several months before Hatzis’ proposal.
She is also demanding the return of the $9500 TAG Heuer watch, which she claims in court documents was given to Hatzis as an engagement gift, and was conditional on marriage.
Soulios declined to comment when contacted by this masthead.
Hatzis denied he had ever been in an affair or abused Soulios while they were engaged. He claimed his former wife would vouch for his fidelity in court.
“I’ve been married for 20 years and my (former) wife will testify that I was never unfaithful,” Hatzis said.
“It will all come out in court.”
While uncommon, legal feuds over engagement rings are not unprecedented.
In 2007, NSW Supreme Court Justice Rex Smart ordered Vicky Papathanasopoulos to pay her former fiance Andrew Vacopoulos $15,000, after her father tossed the ring into a rubbish bin when the engagement was called off.
Smart ruled that Papathanasopoulos was the temporary holder of a conditional gift and the ring would only become her property after their marriage.
However, Smart identified circumstances where the recipient of an engagement ring may not be required to hand it back – even when they called off the wedding.
“There may be repudiatory conduct on the man’s part, for example, acts of violence towards the woman, or having a steady and sexual relationship with another woman. In such circumstances, the woman can probably keep the ring,” Smart said in his judgment.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.