The Massachusetts Supreme Court just decided what to do with a $70,000 engagement ring that was at the center of a dispute between a former couple.
The ruling overturned a 60-year-old state rule that required judges to determine who is responsible for ending a relationship and instead mandated that engagement rings must be returned to the person who originally purchased them.
Former couple Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino began dating in the summer of 2016. According to court documents, Johnson allegedly paid for Settino's lavish gifts and vacations.
Bride breaks off engagement and attends wedding later with friends and family
In August 2017, Johnson asked Settino's father to marry him and proposed with a $70,000 diamond engagement ring.
According to court filings, Johnson claimed that Settino then became critical and uncooperative, not accompanying him to treatment for prostate cancer and lashing out at Settino.
Johnson searched Settino's cell phone and found messages from her to an unknown man.
The engagement ring was worth $70,000. (St. Petersburg)
“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. He needs some playtime,” Settino's text read.
Johnson also discovered a voicemail in which the same unidentified man called Settino “cupcake” and said they didn't see each other enough.
After confronting Settino with the message, Johnson broke off the engagement. However, the owner of the $70,000 engagement ring was unknown. A legal battle ensued.
Jennifer Lopez promises engagement ring from Ben Affleck 'won't go anywhere'
One judge concluded that Mr. Settino was entitled to keep the ring, but an appeals court ruled that Mr. Johnson should receive it.
The case ultimately reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in September, which ruled that Johnson should keep her engagement ring.
The judges said in their ruling that ownership of the engagement ring should continue to be determined by the question of “who is to blame” if the wedding does not take place.
Nearly 70 years ago, a Massachusetts court ruled that an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift and can be returned even if the engagement is broken, if the other party is “not at fault.”
“We join the contemporary trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue and abolish the concept of negligence in this context,” the justices said in Friday's ruling.
Attorney John Kappos, rear left, represents a doctor on March 9, 2022 in Boston. The Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral arguments in Roger M. Crigler and Alan Steinbach, MD v. Maura Healey and Michael O'Keefe. Dr. Roger Crigler, who has incurable metastatic prostate cancer, wants doctors to be able to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients with less than six months to live without fear of prosecution. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday considered arguments in Cape Cod doctors' controversial right-to-die case, with the justices wondering whether times, law and medicine have evolved in time to legalize medically assisted dying. , and questioned whether the sentence should be left alone. to the legislature. (Photo by Pat Greenhouse/Boston Globe via Getty Images) (Pat Greenhouse/Boston Globe via Getty Images)
“If, as in this case, the planned wedding does not take place and the engagement is broken off, the engagement ring must be returned to the giver, regardless of whether there was any fault,” the judge continued.
Stephanie Taberna-Sidden, an attorney representing Bruce Johnson, said she was “pleased” with the decision.
“We are very pleased with the court's decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision that moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Seiden told The Associated Press. ” he said.
One of Mr. Settino's lawyers, Nicholas Rosenberg, told The Associated Press that he was disappointed with the outcome but respected the court's decision to defer to the majority of the remaining states.
“We believe that the concept of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is based on an outdated concept and is a legal loophole in the established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not a legally recognized injury. I firmly believe that this should not happen,'' said Nicholas Rosenberg.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
