BOSTON (AP) — When a relationship falls apart and an engagement is called off, who retains possession of the engagement ring? This question recently came before the highest court in Massachusetts, with a $70,000 ring at the heart of the matter.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court delivered its ruling on Friday, determining that the engagement ring must be returned to the individual who purchased it. This decision puts an end to a longstanding state rule that required judges to delineate who was at fault for the breakup.
The case centered on Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began their relationship in the summer of 2016. Over the next year, they took trips together to various destinations, including New York, Bar Harbor in Maine, the Virgin Islands, and Italy. Johnson covered the cost of these vacations and gifted Settino numerous items, such as jewelry, clothing, shoes, and handbags.
In August 2017, Johnson bought a lavish $70,000 diamond engagement ring and sought permission from Settino’s father to propose. Two months later, he purchased wedding bands for around $3,700. However, Johnson soon began to feel unsettled in the relationship. Court documents reveal he experienced increasing criticisms and a lack of support from Settino, particularly when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and needed her presence during treatments.
Adding to his concerns, Johnson discovered a text on Settino’s phone from another man that read: “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.” The message was accompanied by others, including a voicemail in which the man affectionately referred to Settino as “cupcake.” Settino later explained that this individual was merely a friend.
Feeling betrayed, Johnson ended the engagement. However, the question of who would keep the engagement ring remained unresolved. Initially, a trial judge ruled in favor of Settino, stating Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement,” and therefore she was entitled to keep the ring. An appeals court later reversed this decision, stating that Johnson should retain ownership of the ring.
The case was ultimately brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in September, where the justices deliberated on the fundamental issue of “fault” in determining the ownership of engagement rings following a failed engagement. Over sixty years ago, the court established that an engagement ring is fundamentally seen as a conditional gift, which means the gift could be returned to the giver if the engagement fell through—provided that the giver was “without fault.”
In their decision, the justices agreed to retire the notion of fault in such matters. 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.” Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, hailed the ruling as a fair and well-reasoned decision that modernizes Massachusetts law.
On the other side, Settino’s lawyer expressed disappointment but acknowledged the court’s alignment with the prevailing rule in many states. Nicholas Rosenberg stated, “We firmly believe that the notion of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated concepts and should no longer serve as a loophole in our otherwise well-established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not a legal injury recognized by law.”
Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who specializes in engagement ring law, commented on the case, noting that she was not surprised by the court’s decision to reject the fault standard. However, she hoped the court would have considered a no-fault alternative—allowing the recipient to keep the gift, as is typical with other forms of gifts. She pointed out that while the court categorizes an engagement ring as a conditional gift, the standards for engagement rings differ from those applied to other types of conditional gifts.
