Court: $70,000 engagement ring must be returned

BOSTON (AP) — Who will keep the engagement ring if the romance turns sour and the wedding is called off?

That’s what Massachusetts’ highest court was asked to decide, in a dispute centered on a $70,000 ring.

Ultimately, a court ruled Friday that the engagement ring must be returned to the person who bought it, ending a six-decade-old state rule that required judges to try to determine who was to blame for a relationship breakup.

According to court records, the case involves Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began dating in the summer of 2016. Over the next year, they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy. Johnson paid for the vacation and also gave Settino jewelry, clothes, shoes and bags.

Johnson eventually bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her in August 2017. Two months later, he also bought two wedding rings for about $3,700.

Johnson said that after that he felt Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive of him, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatment when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court records.

At some point, Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and found a message from her to a stranger.

“My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. I need to play a little,” the message said. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man called Settino a “cupcake” and said they didn’t see each other much. Settino said the man was just a friend.

Johnson broke off the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained in question.

The judge initially concluded that Settino had a right to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” The appeals court ruled that Johnson should receive the ring.

In September, the case went to 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 question of “who is to blame” should continue to govern rights to wedding rings when the wedding does not take place.

More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring was generally understood to be a conditional gift, and determined that the giver could get it back after a broken engagement, but only if that person was “innocent.”

“We now join the contemporary trend adopted by most jurisdictions that have addressed this issue and reject the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “Where, as here, the planned wedding does not take place and the engagement is broken, the wedding ring must be returned to the donor regardless of his guilt.”

Johnson’s lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Seiden, welcomed the decision.

“We are very pleased with today’s court decision. This is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision that moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Seiden said.

Settino’s lawyer did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.