BOSTON – A woman must return a $70,000 engagement ring to her former fiance after a ruling Friday from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The justices also overturned a rule that required judges to decide who is at fault for an engagement ending.
Johnson bought an engagement ring from Tiffany’s in Boston for more than $70,000.
“…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.
Where the planned nuptial does not come to pass, the engagement gift must be returned to the donor,” she continued.
BOSTON – The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Friday that a woman must give back a $70,000 engagement ring to her ex-fiance.
A rule that required judges to determine who is at fault for an engagement ending was also overturned by the justices.
the engagement.
For a brief period in 2017, Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino were engaged. Johnson spent over $70,000 on an engagement ring from Tiffany’s in Boston. Then he asked her to marry him on Cape Cod.
A little while later, they split up. Johnson accused Settino of verbally abusing him, having an affair, and refusing to go with him to cancer treatments. “My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days,” Johnson said, referring to a text message he discovered on Settino’s phone to a man. Playtime is what I need. Settino claimed the man she texted was merely a friend and denied having an affair.
the fight in the ring.
In the beginning, a trial court judge decided in Settino’s favor, holding Johnson accountable for calling off the engagement and allowing her to keep the ring. After Johnson appealed the ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided in his favor.
According to the appeals court, the SJC would have to decide whether Massachusetts should follow other states that return engagement rings to the giver in the event that an engagement is called off, regardless of who is at fault.
engagements in Massachusetts that are not at fault.
The 65-year-old rule, which required judges to determine who was at fault for the engagement ending before giving the ring to the other party, was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt wrote in the 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.”.
“..”. In cases of conditional engagement gifts, the only pertinent question is whether the marriage ceremony, which was the condition under which the gift was given, has not taken place. The engagement gift has to be given back to the donor if the intended wedding does not happen,” she added.
