### Massachusetts High Court Rules on $70,000 Engagement Ring Dispute

The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that an engagement ring should be returned to the purchaser if the wedding is called off. This landmark decision overturns a state rule that had been in place for over sixty years, requiring judges to determine who was at fault for the breakup.

The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, a couple who began dating in the summer of 2016. Over the next year, their relationship included extensive travels to destinations like New York, Bar Harbor in Maine, the Virgin Islands, and Italy. Johnson financed their vacations and also gifted Settino with various items, including jewelry, clothing, shoes, and handbags.

In August 2017, Johnson, having bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring, sought permission from Settino’s father to marry her. Two months later, he purchased two wedding bands for around $3,700. However, Johnson claimed that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive over time, particularly after his diagnosis with prostate cancer. Tensions escalated when Johnson found a suspicious message on Settino’s phone, which suggested she was planning to meet another man while Johnson was away. Settino maintained that the man was merely a friend.

Johnson called off the engagement, but the question of who would keep the ring lingered. A trial judge initially ruled in Settino's favor, suggesting that Johnson had wrongly believed she was unfaithful. However, an appeals court later sided with Johnson.

In September, the case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which concluded that Johnson should retain the ring. The court determined that fault should no longer be a factor in such cases. The justices stated that, moving forward, the engagement ring must be returned to the giver if the wedding does not take place, regardless of who is to blame.

Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson’s lawyer, lauded the ruling as fair and just. Conversely, Nicholas Rosenberg, representing Settino, expressed disappointment, arguing that the idea of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is outdated.

Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, an expert in engagement ring law, noted that while it was not surprising the court dismissed the fault standard, she was disappointed they did not consider allowing the recipient to keep the ring. She pointed out that the ruling treats engagement rings differently from other conditional gifts.