US Supreme Court ends fault-based rule on engagement rings

The case, which involved a dispute over a $70,000 engagement ring in the US, highlights the evolving legal view on engagement rings as conditional gifts.

Who should keep an engagement ring if a relationship falls apart and the wedding is canceled? This was the question posed to the highest court in Massachusetts, with a $70,000 ring at the heart of the disagreement, Caliber.Az reports via foreign media.  

The court ruled that the engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, overturning a 60-year-old state precedent that required judges to determine who was at fault for the breakup. The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began their relationship in the summer of 2016, according to court records. Over the next year, they traveled together to destinations like New York, Bar Harbor in Maine, the Virgin Islands, and Italy. Johnson covered the costs for the trips and also gifted Settino jewelry, clothing, shoes, and handbags.  

Eventually, Johnson purchased a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and, in August 2017, sought permission from Settino's father to marry her. Two months later, he also bought two wedding bands worth approximately $3,700.   However, Johnson claimed that after that, Settino became more critical and unsupportive, including criticizing him and failing to accompany him to medical treatments after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court documents.

At one point, Johnson looked at Settino's phone and found a message from her to a man he did not recognize. “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. Johnson also discovered messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as "cupcake" and mentioned that they didn’t spend enough time together.

Settino claimed the man was simply a friend.   As a result, Johnson ended the engagement, but the question of who should keep the ring remained unresolved.   Initially, a trial judge ruled that Settino could keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson "mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement."

However, an appeals court later determined that Johnson should receive the ring back.   In September, the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately sided with Johnson, ruling that he should retain the ring.   The justices noted that the case raised an important question: whether the issue of "who is at fault" should still dictate the ownership of engagement rings when the wedding is called off.   Over six decades ago, the court ruled that an engagement ring is typically considered a conditional gift, and the person who gives it can reclaim it if the engagement fails—provided that person is "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 ruling.

By Naila Huseynova