Bride vs Groom Over $70,000 Engagement Ring: US Court's Landmark Decision

The engagement ring should be returned to the buyer when marriages are cancelled irrespective of whose fault it was for the relationship's failure, said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Friday. With that, the court overturned a six-decade-old state rule that required judges to determine the party at fault for the breakup, reported AP.

The case involved two individuals – Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino. According to court filings, Johnson and Settino began dating in 2016. Over the next year, they even took many trips together for which Johnson paid. He also sent Settino gifts such as handbags, clothes, jewellery and shoes. Johnson eventually bought a diamond engagement ring worth $70,000, and in August 2017, he asked Settino's father for her hand in marriage. Two months later, he bought a set of wedding bands estimated to be worth $3,700.

Johnson later stated that following these gestures, Settino's behaviour shifted, becoming increasingly critical and unsupportive. He claimed she berated him and did not support him during his prostate cancer treatments, as noted in court filings.

Johnson then discovered text and voicemail exchanges between Settino and another man. She reportedly referred to needing “playtime” while Johnson was away. He also discovered a voicemail in which the man called Settino “cupcake.”

Johnson ended the engagement, despite Settino's claim that the man was just a friend. Initially, a trial judge ruled in favour of Settino, allowing her to keep the engagement ring. They believed Johnson's suspicions of infidelity were unfounded. The decision was later overturned by an appeals court, which concluded that Johnson was entitled to reclaim the ring. The case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where a more permanent precedent was set.

In their ruling, the justices noted that the case raised the question of whether “who is at fault” should still determine the right to keep an engagement ring when the wedding is called off. They, instead, brought Massachusetts law into line with what has become the norm in many other states — that an engagement ring is a conditional gift that must be returned to the donor if the wedding does not go through, regardless of who ends the relationship or why.

According to AP, the justices wrote in the November 8 ruling, “We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context. 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.”

Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson's lawyer, said the court's ruling was “well-reasoned, fair.” Settino's lawyer, Nicholas Rosenberg, expressed disappointment with the outcome but acknowledged respect for the court's decision to align with the majority rule observed in other states.