Who gets the ring in a breakup?
This question might seem easy to decide, but for Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, the answer will be determined by the highest court in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
The couple got engaged at the Wequassett Resort and Golf Club in Harwich in August 2017, but their engagement did not last long. In January of 2018, Johnson sued his ex-fiancée to recover the $70,000 Tiffany’s engagement ring he proposed.
Following a long legal battle, the case it set to appear before the SJC on Sept. 6.
What are the details of the case?
According to the court documents, Johnson began to find some of Settino’s behavior troubling very early into their engagement. Johnson claims his fiancée would often verbally degrade him, calling him names and treating him like a child, and wouldn’t come with him to his cancer treatments.
However, it was not until Johnson found text messages to another man in Settino’s phone that he called off the engagement. The text, according to the court documents, said “(m)y Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.”
Settino’s claimed the other man in question was a lifelong friend and nothing more, and a lower court later agreed with her. But Johnson didn’t believe her and canceled the wedding.
What is the legal question at play in this case?
The question of keeping the engagement ring after a breakup is currently settled in Massachusetts by determining who was at fault for the broken engagement.
According to this principle, the original court trial sided with Settino, saying Johnson was at fault for the breakup since he made the decision based on mistaken beliefs of Settino’s infidelity. The judge allowed Settino to keep the engagement ring and one wedding band, along with $43,000 for some promised dental work, plus interest.
However, Johnson still wanted his engagement ring back, so he submitted an appeal. In the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the judges considered that the state’s fault-based approach may be outdated, bringing up the majority rule of the “modern no-fault approach.”
The American Bar Association explains that this principle instead states that an engagement ring is a conditional gift that must be returned if the promise of engagement is broken, regardless of fault.
Ultimately, the Appeals Court ruled in a 2-1 decision in favor of Johnson. While the majority sided with Johnson by using the no-fault approach, one justice dissented, stating that the Appeals Court does not have the authority to move to a no-fault standard and that the SJC must resolve such a question.
And so, now the case is proceeding to the SJC.
This article originally appeared on The Patriot Ledger: A $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring will land this MA former couple in court
Amanda Smith is a dedicated U.S. correspondent with a passion for uncovering the stories that shape the nation. With a background in political science, she provides in-depth analysis and insightful commentary on domestic affairs, ensuring readers are well-informed about the latest developments across the United States.
