— The question of who should retain an engagement ring when a relationship falls apart and wedding plans are scrapped was recently addressed by the highest court in Massachusetts, centering around a costly $70,000 ring.
On Friday, the court reached a decision stating that the engagement ring must be returned to the individual who purchased it. This ruling effectively overturns a longstanding Massachusetts guideline that required identification of who was at fault for the relationship’s demise.
The case arose between Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began their relationship in the summer of 2016. Their romance flourished over the following year as they embarked on trips together to locations such as New York, Bar Harbor in Maine, the Virgin Islands, and Italy, with Johnson funding their vacations and presenting Settino with various gifts, such as jewelry and designer items.
In August 2017, Johnson purchased a diamond engagement ring worth $70,000 and obtained permission from Settino’s father to propose. Two months later, he acquired additional wedding bands totaling approximately $3,700. However, Johnson noticed a shift in Settino’s behavior, describing her as increasingly critical and unsupportive, particularly during his health challenges with prostate cancer.
Things took a turn when Johnson discovered a message from Settino to an unfamiliar man, stating, “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.” Further investigation revealed it was part of a conversation in which the man affectionately referred to her as “cupcake.” Settino has maintained that this individual was merely a friend.
Following the discovery, Johnson ended their engagement, but that left the question of the ring unresolved. Initially, a trial court ruled in favor of Settino, suggesting she should keep the ring because Johnson had “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him.” However, this verdict was challenged, and an appeals court sided with Johnson, stating he should regain possession of the ring.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case in September and ultimately sided with Johnson. The justices pondered whether the concept of “fault” should still affect the ownership rights to engagement rings when an engagement does not lead to marriage.
Over sixty years prior, the court had established that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, returnable to the giver only if they were “without fault.” However, in their recent ruling, the justices aligned with a more contemporary viewpoint recognized by most jurisdictions, which discards the fault requirement in such situations. They stated, “Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”
Following the ruling, Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, expressed contentment with the court’s decision, stating that it was well-reasoned and a positive step for Massachusetts law. Meanwhile, no immediate comments were available from Settino’s legal counsel.