In a landmark decision,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled on Friday that a woman
must return a $70,000 engagement ring to her former fiancé after their
engagement was called off. The court's ruling also establishes a new precedent
in the state, no longer requiring judges to determine who was at fault when an
engagement ends.
The Engagement and Breakup
Bruce Johnson and
Caroline Settino were briefly engaged in 2017. During their engagement, Johnson
purchased a $70,000 engagement ring from Tiffany's in Boston, and he proposed
on Cape Cod. However, their engagement ended shortly afterward under contentious
circumstances. Johnson claimed Settino had been verbally abusive, and unsupportive
during his cancer treatments, and that she was unfaithful. He presented a text
message as evidence, which Settino allegedly sent to another man,
stating, "My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need
some playtime." Settino denied having an affair and insisted that the man
she texted was simply a friend.
This breakdown in their
relationship eventually led them to a legal battle over the engagement ring, an
issue that Massachusetts law had traditionally approached through a fault-based
lens.
The Legal Battle Over the Ring
Initially, a trial court
sided with Settino, awarding her the ring on the grounds that Johnson was
responsible for ending the engagement. Disputing this decision, Johnson
appealed, taking his case to a higher court, where the Massachusetts Appeals
Court ruled in his favor. The Appeals Court then deferred the case to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, asking them to consider adopting a
no-fault approach to engagement ring disputes.
The question before the
SJC was whether Massachusetts should join other states where engagement rings
must be returned to the giver if the engagement is called off, regardless of
who is at fault.
No-Fault Engagement Rulings: A Shift in Massachusetts
In a landmark shift, the
SJC ruled that engagement rings should be returned to the giver when an
engagement is called off, regardless of fault. Associate Justice Dalila Argaez
Wendlandt, in the court’s decision, emphasized that “the only relevant inquiry
in conditional engagement gift cases is whether the condition under which the
gift was made—that is, the marriage ceremony—has failed to occur.” This ruling
signifies a major shift from the previous 65-year-old rule that required courts
to assess who was responsible for ending the engagement.
This decision aligns
Massachusetts with the modern approach taken by a majority of states across the
country, making fault irrelevant in deciding who keeps an engagement ring when
a wedding is canceled. Justice Wendlandt added that if the marriage doesn’t
take place, “the engagement gift must be returned to the donor.”
What This Means for Engagement Ring Disputes
The ruling has broader
implications, setting a new precedent for engagement-related disputes in
Massachusetts. By eliminating the fault requirement, the SJC's decision
simplifies the legal process for similar cases in the future. Now, the
determining factor in whether an engagement ring must be returned is simply
whether the wedding occurred, not who ended the engagement.
For former couples, this
no-fault approach removes the need to litigate the reasons behind a breakup and
could reduce the emotional toll of publicly airing personal grievances in
court. It also serves as a deterrent against lengthy and costly court battles
over engagement rings, as the outcome is now more straightforward.
Broader Legal Context and Public Reaction
The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court’s ruling aligns with the trend in many states to adopt a
no-fault approach in engagement gift cases. This approach is becoming the
standard, based on the principle that engagement rings are conditional gifts,
given with the expectation of marriage. If that condition is not fulfilled, the
gift should be returned, regardless of the circumstances of the breakup.
This no-fault precedent
is expected to resonate with both legal experts and the public, simplifying
engagement disputes and possibly sparking similar legal reforms in other states
that still operate under fault-based rules. The ruling also highlights shifting
cultural perspectives, as engagement gifts are increasingly viewed through a
legal rather than purely emotional lens.
For Johnson and Settino,
this ruling brings finality to a protracted and contentious dispute, though it
will likely continue to be a topic of conversation within Massachusetts and
beyond, as the legal framework for engagement-related disputes evolves.
The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court’s ruling has set a transformative new precedent by adopting a
no-fault approach in cases involving the return of engagement rings. By
eliminating fault as a factor, the SJC has simplified engagement disputes and aligned
with a growing national trend. This ruling is likely to have a significant
impact on similar cases in Massachusetts, making it easier for individuals to
resolve disputes and move forward after a breakup without the added strain of
legal battles over fault.
With this ruling,
Massachusetts now joins a majority of states in recognizing the conditional
nature of engagement gifts. As more states move towards this no-fault standard,
engagement disputes may become less common, as the courts provide a clearer
path forward for both parties involved.
