Judge’s ruling finally settles question: Who gets the ring after a failed engagement?

Experts say married couples can qualify for better credit and better terms on their loans, among many other financial benefits.
BOSTON – When a couple breaks off an engagement, who should keep the ring? That’s the question the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court tackled in a case involving a $70,000 diamond.
In a decision released Friday, the court ruled that the engagement ring should be returned to the person who originally purchased it, bringing an end to a six-decade state rule that required judges to determine who was at fault for the breakup before deciding who could keep the ring. 
Now, the court’s new ruling clarifies that the ring is considered a gift conditional on marriage, and if the wedding does not take place, the giver is entitled to its return.
The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and in August 2017 asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Two months later, he also bought two wedding bands for about $3,700.
File: Woman holds the wedding ring and weeps (Credit: Getty Creative)
Johnson said he felt like after that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings.
At some point Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.
EARLIER: Who keeps the engagement ring after a breakup? Massachusetts Supreme Court to decide
“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and said they didn’t see enough of each other. Settino has said the man was just a friend.
Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.
A trial judge initially concluded Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” An appeals court found Johnson should get the ring.
In September, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.
More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the person who gives it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault.”
“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,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “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.”
The information for this story was provided by the Massachusetts court case and the Associated Press. This story was reported from Los Angeles.