That’s what the highest court in Massachusetts was asked to decide with a $70,000 ring at the centre of the dispute. The court ultimately ruled that an engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, ending a six-decade state rule that required judges to try to identify who was to blame for the end of the relationship.
The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Over the next year, they travelled together across the United States and to Italy. Johnson paid for the vacations and also gave Settino jewellery, clothing, shoes and handbags. Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond ring and in Aug 2017 asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her.
Johnson said he felt like after that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings. At some point Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know. “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and said they didn’t see enough of each other. Settino has said the man was just a friend.
Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.
A trial judge initially concluded Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him”. An appeals court found Johnson should get the ring. In Sept, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring. In their ruling the justices said the case raised the question of whether the issue of “who is at fault” should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings when the wedding doesn’t happen. More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the person who gives it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault”.
Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who studies engagement ring law, said she wasn’t surprised that the court rejected the fault standard, saying it really doesn’t fit with modern family law.
