{"id":2513,"date":"2024-09-05T23:20:44","date_gmt":"2024-09-05T23:20:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/70000-ring-sparks-debate-over-engagement-law-justia-news-september-5-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-09-05T23:20:44","modified_gmt":"2024-09-05T23:20:44","slug":"70000-ring-sparks-debate-over-engagement-law-justia-news-september-5-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/70000-ring-sparks-debate-over-engagement-law-justia-news-september-5-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"$70,000 Ring Sparks Debate Over Engagement Law \u2014 Justia News \u2014 September 5, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will soon decide who is entitled to keep the ring of a broken engagement in a case that could alter Massachusetts law.<\/span><\/p>\n

Current Massachusetts law stemming from a 1959 case holds that if an engagement ends without marriage, the person who gave the ring is generally entitled to have it back, so long as they are not the one at fault for the broken engagement. However, this standard varies by state. In some states, such as New York, an engagement ring is viewed as a conditional gift that should be returned to the gifter if the engagement ends, regardless of fault. Montana takes a different approach, treating an engagement ring like any other gift that cannot be taken back.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the case at issue, <\/span>Johnson v. Settino<\/span><\/i>, the plaintiff, Bruce Johnson, sought to get a $70,000 engagement ring back after ending his engagement with the defendant, Caroline Settino, over the belief that she was having an affair.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the parties\u2019 history outlined in the appellate opinion, after the two started dating, Johnson would regularly gift Settino jewelry, clothing, shoes, bags, art, and travel, often providing her receipts. He also paid for a portion of her dental implant surgery. But once they were engaged, Johnson began feeling that there were issues in their relationship. According to Johnson, as stated in the appellate opinion, Settino began to verbally abuse him, calling him a \u201cmoron\u201d and blaming him when things went wrong. He also felt that she did not support him after he was diagnosed with cancer and would yell and charge off if he confronted her to stand up for himself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Johnson decided to push through these issues until one night when they had an argument during which Settino suggested that she could get another man whenever she wanted. This prompted Johnson to look through Settino\u2019s phone, where he found a text message to a male he did not know that stated, \u201cMy Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.\u201d He also listened to a voicemail in which the same person complained about not seeing Settino enough. Johnson confronted Settino about an affair, but Settino denied it, explaining that the person was her best friend with whom she had a strictly platonic relationship. Johnson ended the engagement via voicemail a week or so later.<\/span><\/p>\n

The lower court awarded Settino the engagement ring and one wedding band, along with reasonable costs to finish Settino\u2019s dental procedure. The court found that Johnson was mistaken in his belief that Settino was having an affair, making Johnson at fault for the broken engagement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On appeal, Johnson challenged whether he was the party actually at fault, and the appellate court undertook an analysis of fault beyond blaming the party who decided to end the engagement. It determined that it was incorrect to decide fault based on whether or not Settino actually had an affair. The correct question was whether or not Johnson was without fault. Ruling for Johnson, the appellate court stated that there was no evidence of Johnson\u2019s fault, even if his belief in his ex-fiancee\u2019s infidelity was mistaken.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThere is an inherent unseemliness to having judges, or juries, sitting in judgment of matters of the heart,\u201d Justice Milkey wrote in a dissent to the appellate opinion, noting that the case presents an opportunity for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to revisit the existing law.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additional Reading<\/b><\/p>\n

Fight over $70,000 ring in Massachusetts tests rules of engagement<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Reuters<\/span><\/i> (September 5, 2024)<\/span><\/p>\n

Fight over $70,000 engagement ring heads to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>CBS News<\/span><\/i> (August 28, 2024)<\/span><\/p>\n

Massachusetts law about engagement rings<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Mass.gov<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Johnson v. Settino, Massachusetts Appeals Court<\/span><\/a> (September 13, 2023)<\/span><\/p>\n

Image Credit: <\/b>STUDIO492 \/ Shutterstock.com<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n