November 9th 2024.
When a relationship takes a turn for the worse and a wedding is called off, who gets to keep the engagement ring? This was the question brought before the highest court in the US state of Massachusetts, with a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute. After much deliberation, the court ruled that the ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, putting an end to a six-decade state rule that placed blame on one party for the end of the relationship.
The case revolved around Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began dating in the summer of 2016. Their relationship blossomed over the next year, with trips to various destinations such as New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands, and Italy. Johnson not only paid for these vacations, but also showered Settino with gifts including jewelry, clothing, shoes, and handbags. In August 2017, he even went as far as to ask Settino's father for permission to marry her, and two months later, he purchased two wedding bands worth $3,700.
However, things took a turn for the worse as Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive towards Johnson. According to court documents, she would berate him and even refused to accompany him to his treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. In a shocking turn of events, Johnson discovered a message on Settino's phone from a man he did not know. The message read, "My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime." He also found messages from the man referring to Settino as "cupcake" and expressing a desire to see her more often. Settino claimed that the man was just a friend, but Johnson ended the engagement.
The question of ownership of the ring remained up in the air until the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in September. After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of Johnson, stating that he should keep the ring. The justices also addressed the issue of placing blame in such cases, stating that it is an outdated concept and should not determine the rights to an engagement ring when the wedding does not happen.
The court's decision marks a significant change in the state's law, moving away from the previous ruling that deemed an engagement ring a conditional gift that could be returned to the giver only if they were not at fault. In their ruling, the justices stated that "the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault" when the wedding does not take place and the engagement ends.
Johnson's lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Siden, expressed satisfaction with the court's decision, calling it a well-reasoned and just ruling that moves Massachusetts law in the right direction. On the other hand, a lawyer for Settino did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This case serves as a reminder that in the unfortunate event of a failed engagement, it is the person who purchased the ring who has the right to keep it, regardless of who may be at fault.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
