After meeting in the summer of 2016, Caroline Settino and Bruce Johnson entered a brief but intense romantic relationship, marked by extravagant gifts and a $70,000 engagement ring. However, their engagement ended abruptly, leading to a legal dispute over the ring.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that when an engagement does not lead to marriage, the engagement ring must be returned to the giver, regardless of who is at fault for the breakup. This decision, made seven years after the couple's split, clarifies the legal standing of engagement rings in the state.
Historically, Massachusetts courts determined the rightful owner of an engagement ring based on who was to blame for the relationship's failure. The recent ruling shifts away from this practice, emphasizing that assigning blame is often complex and not conducive to the purpose of an engagement.
The court noted that various personal issues could contribute to a breakup, making it difficult to pinpoint fault. In this case, Mr. Johnson cited several grievances against Ms. Settino, including her treatment of him and concerns over her communications with a male friend.
Following the breakup, Ms. Settino described her life as having "imploded," while Mr. Johnson sought to reclaim the engagement ring. Ms. Settino counterclaimed for dental surgery costs that Mr. Johnson had promised to cover.
A lower court initially ruled in favor of Ms. Settino, allowing her to keep the ring, but this decision was later overturned by an appeals court, which ordered the return of the rings to Mr. Johnson. The case was then brought before the state’s highest court for clarification.
During the court proceedings, both parties argued for changes in state law regarding engagement rings. Ms. Settino's attorney contended that engagement rings should not be viewed as conditional gifts, while Mr. Johnson's legal representation advocated for a no-fault approach to broken engagements.
The court ultimately upheld the view of engagement rings as gifts conditioned upon marriage, a stance that has been widely accepted, with the exception of Montana. Following the ruling, Ms. Settino expressed disappointment, while Mr. Johnson's attorney highlighted the lengthy litigation process, which lasted significantly longer than the couple's relationship.