Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

MA court sets new precedent on who keeps an engagement ring

lala646

lala646

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
2,227
The Massachusetts Supreme Court just overturned longtime precedent regarding who gets to keep an engagement ring after a split. I've posted a gift link, so hopefully you can read the article.

 
lala646 said:
The Massachusetts Supreme Court just overturned longtime precedent regarding who gets to keep an engagement ring after a split. I've posted a gift link, so hopefully you can read the article.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the gift, sincerely.
But to receive the "free" 'gift' one must give WAPO their email address.
It's not free because email address are worth money.
As they say, information is the new oil.

wa.png


They make money from our email addresses and all the personal info connected with it.
I mostly read CNN, AP and BBC.
Now CNN wants our email address too. :knockout:
Like many, I'm resisting giving CNN mine.

Having to watch CNN ads is payment enough IMO.
Now on CNN every time you want to see a story via a video they make you sit through an ad, which often is longer than the news story. :angryfire:

And recently CNN implemented a reader category they call "subscriber".
So now in the headlines some of the most interesting stories it says, "For Subscribers Only".

All this is not your fault of course, but thanks gain thanks for the gift link.
 
Last edited:
So would you please summarize the story?
What was the law before?
What is it now?
 
What's changed? I couldn't easily access the article but now I want to know lol.

My understanding is that the laws differ by state but that an e-ring is generally considered a "conditional gift." (?) Which means it belongs to the recipient the minute the marriage is final. But it goes back to the giver if the marriage does not take place. I don't know if it matters who breaks off the engagement.

But there are also a lot of possible complicating factors, such as couples that live together first with their finances co-mingled, the recipient paying for part or all of the ring in the first place, when both partners give each other a ring, if the e-ring was a birthday or Christmas gift and etc.
 

Ex-fiancée must return $70K ring after failed engagement, court says​

Massachusetts’s highest court reversed a longstanding ruling, saying an engagement ring must be returned if the wedding falls through.


By Kyle Melnick
November 10, 2024 at 8:50 p.m. EST

After a year of dating that included trips to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Italy, Bruce Johnson bought Caroline Settino a $70,000 diamond engagement ring from Tiffany & Co.

Johnson proposed during a dinner in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in 2017. When Settino agreed, other diners at the restaurant applauded.

The next year, Johnson sued Settino, claiming he was the rightful owner of the engagement ring.

Johnson broke up with Settino before they were married, and his lawsuit forced Massachusetts’s highest court to reconsider a 65-year-old ruling that said someone can retrieve the engagement ring they gave their partner only if they weren’t at “fault” for the breakup.

On Friday, Johnson learned he would reclaim the ring after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that, from now on, an engagement ring must be returned to the buyer if the wedding falls through, regardless of who’s at fault.

“They moved the law in Massachusetts in the right direction,” Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson’s attorney, told The Washington Post. “And our client felt justified in getting the ring back and having the law in Massachusetts be developed so that hopefully no other parties will have to fight over this.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion said that determining who was at fault for a breakup was difficult and “at odds with a principal purpose of an engagement period to test the permanency of the couple’s wish to marry.” It added that engagement rings are “gifts inherently conditioned on a subsequent marriage.”

Nicholas Rosenberg, Settino’s attorney, said in a statement to The Post that “the idea of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions.”

“I am disappointed with the retention of the societal presumption that a ring is given conditionally and not fully vested unless the recipient completes the promise of marriage,” he said.

After Johnson began dating Settino in the summer of 2016, he took her on trips and bought her jewelry, handbags and shoes, according to Friday’s opinion. In August 2017, Johnson asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her, and Johnson proposed shortly after. The couple planned their wedding for September 2018.

But in the fall of 2017, Johnson alleged, Settino had become “critical and unsupportive of him,” according to Friday’s opinion. Settino called him a moron, yelled at him, and didn’t accompany him to medical appointments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, Johnson claimed.

Near the end of the year, Johnson ended the engagement, according to the opinion. He sued Settino the next year in hopes of retrieving the engagement ring.
Settino, a teacher, later said in court that her “life imploded” after Johnson called off the wedding.

“I had 60 people from my school coming to the wedding,” she said. “We were putting them all up for two days at the resort.”

A Superior Court judge in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, ruled in 2021 that Johnson was responsible for terminating the engagement and was therefore at fault, so Settino could keep the ring. But an appeals court reversed that decision in September 2023, saying that Johnson wasn’t at fault because his decision to end the engagement was reasonable.

The case went to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which had not reconsidered the legal standard for failed engagement gifts since 1959, when a similar case involved a couple debating who should possess a ring after the relationship ended. At the time, the court decided that the buyer could retrieve the gifts only if they were “without fault.”

In oral arguments in September, Taverna Siden said the ring was a “conditional gift” based on the marriage happening and pushed for the law to change.

Rosenberg said during the arguments that an engagement ring can’t be a conditional gift.

“You’re transferring title of property ownership, and the ring is either yours or it’s mine,” he said. “There is no such thing as this, ‘It’s yours for now but then I’m going to bring action to take it back.’”

Justice Scott Kafker said during the hearing that the 1959 ruling “seems old-fashioned.”

The court’s opinion reflected that thought while siding with Taverna Siden’s arguments, potentially ending a legal dispute that lasted more than four years longer than Johnson and Settino’s relationship.
 
You know you are "buying too much ring" when you need to worry about getting it back (?!). I always assumed it's a gift to the bride-to-be -- astounded to learn that it is a transactional financial arrangement.

I guess you need to make sure that the marriage "falls through" before anyone says "I do."

Maybe Big Diamond has been lobbying in Mass.
 
Last edited:
Please don't flame me, however, perhaps I am being old and cynical, in that I can't help but feel she was a gold digger of some sort.

When she got the ring and enough nice trips and presents, she grew tired of him, and decided to ditch him, wrongly assuming the ring and presents, especially the ring, was hers to keep.

Good on him to sue!

DK :))
 
Last edited:
I think it’s reasonable to have to return a ring, especially one that expensive.
 
I agree with MA's SC, "... determining who was at fault for a breakup was difficult ..."
Boy! few things could be more true!!!

With this no-fault condition both parties will know this BEFORE the ring purchase.

Now I'm curious about the law in the other 49 states, and whether more states will change to MA's law.
 
I think it's fair to expect the ring to be given back if the engagement is broken. I don't think of it as a "gift" but as a symbol of coming together with the intent to marry. If that intent fails, then I think the ring should go back to the giver.
 
How old is he and how old is she?
 
It’s an interesting case, when is a gift not a gift?
Technically speaking an engagement ring is given in anticipation of marriage so the argument is that it is a “conditional” gift. If the marriage doesn’t proceed the basis of receiving / giving the gift dissolves so the ownership reverts to the giver.
The tradition of giving a betrothal gift is based around the groom evidencing his commitment and sincerity to his wife to be and showing he has the financial means to support her. In Western Society we adopt the engagement ring as the supposed evidence of commitment and sincerity rather than a few pigs and a cow.
Traditionally though if one of the parties “cheated” or engaged in activities that cause the either the bride or groom to not proceed to marriage, the aggrieved party kept the ring or returned it.
However, if the ring was received as a Christmas present or a Birthday present then it isn’t conditionally given so ownership stays with the recipient even if the relationship that led to the gift giving scenario has ended.
So by all means receive a lovely diamond ring on your left hand ring finger from your beloved , just don’t call it an engagement ring if you want to keep it.
 
Maybe I am in the minority here but I wouldn't want to keep the ring if the marriage didn't happen. Why would she want it? Bad karma associated with the ring and plus bad memories. No. Thanks.
 
Bron357 said:
However, if the ring was received as a Christmas present or a Birthday present then it isn’t conditionally given so ownership stays with the recipient even if the relationship that led to the gift giving scenario has ended.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the law is (or was) like this in a lot of places. I remember reading it and thinking "no one should ever give an engagement ring for a birthday or Christmas present".......

I just pulled up the opinion of the SJC from the reporting site and noted that the court said of the jurisdictions that have considered this issue:

Only Montana views an engagement ring as an unconditional gift completed upon acceptance. Albinger v. Harris, 2002 MT 118, ¶ 38.
 
Last edited:
Are we allowed to discuss this? The supreme court judges are appointed by the governor. The governor is elected so this is politics. Right?
 
A broken engagement is awful. The last thing I'd want to do then is hire a lawyer and deal with that person two more times in court (since the original decision was appealed). That prolongs your attachment to that person and its associated misery. Maybe better to just tone down the e-ring expense in the first place!
 
I wonder how much he spent on lawyer and court fees to get this settlement. I bet it’s almost as much as he spent on the ring. Weird decision making all around.

Sometimes private lobby groups will fund litigation if they think the ruling will benefit them. Wonder if that was going on here.
 
Dreamer_D said:
I wonder how much he spent on lawyer and court fees to get this settlement. I bet it’s almost as much as he spent on the ring. Weird decision making all around.

Sometimes private lobby groups will fund litigation if they think the ruling will benefit them. Wonder if that was going on here.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a reason which might benefit a special interest group, but maybe I'm just missing something. I'm guessing he wanted it back for the principle. Or potentially the attorney he used was a friend or family member. He spent a lot of money on her during their relationship, trips, gifts, dental work, etc. Maybe the money wasn't a big deal to him. He thought she cheated on him. The lower court thought there wasn't enough evidence of that, but who knows. So I'm thinking he was just angry and didn't want her to benefit any more from their relationship.
 
Lookinagain said:
I can't think of a reason which might benefit a special interest group, but maybe I'm just missing something. I'm guessing he wanted it back for the principle. Or potentially the attorney he used was a friend or family member. He spent a lot of money on her during their relationship, trips, gifts, dental work, etc. Maybe the money wasn't a big deal to him. He thought she cheated on him. The lower court thought there wasn't enough evidence of that, but who knows. So I'm thinking he was just angry and didn't want her to benefit any more from their relationship.
Click to expand...

Spite can be powerful! I suspect she more than “earned” what he spent on her lol
 
Lookinagain said:
I can't think of a reason which might benefit a special interest group, but maybe I'm just missing something. I'm guessing he wanted it back for the principle. Or potentially the attorney he used was a friend or family member. He spent a lot of money on her during their relationship, trips, gifts, dental work, etc. Maybe the money wasn't a big deal to him. He thought she cheated on him. The lower court thought there wasn't enough evidence of that, but who knows. So I'm thinking he was just angry and didn't want her to benefit any more from their relationship.
Click to expand...

There is a faction that wants to end no-fault divorce, and something like this could be used as part of the argument toward that, but I agree that in this case it was likely just spite.
 
I read the WaPo article and I am not seeing anything that rising to spite? Can someone provide a link or reference?

It seems like he was generous with gifts and whatever happened between them that he ended the engagement, I'll say that if my partner called me a moron or refused to go with me to cancer appointments, I'd be pretty disappointed and pretty sure they weren't supportive in the way I would want and expect in a marriage...

And I have always believed that engagement rings should be returned to the giver if the engagement is broken -- based on my notions of fairness and closure.
 
Emotions/feelings set aside …

Marriage is a contract. The ring is one party’s ‘consideration’ in the contract. If one or both parties fail to ‘perform’, the contract is null & any ‘consideration’ should be returned to its provider-party … I would think, based on basic contract law.
 
An engagement ends and what matters most to this man is the ring? I would give the ring back and get on with my life. When you love someone and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them, I can’t imagine “things” being so important to you if it ends.
 
Last edited:
marymm said:
I read the WaPo article and I am not seeing anything that rising to spite? Can someone provide a link or reference?

It seems like he was generous with gifts and whatever happened between them that he ended the engagement, I'll say that if my partner called me a moron or refused to go with me to cancer appointments, I'd be pretty disappointed and pretty sure they weren't supportive in the way I would want and expect in a marriage...

And I have always believed that engagement rings should be returned to the giver if the engagement is broken -- based on my notions of fairness and closure.
Click to expand...

Going to such lengths to get the ring back, including many appeals and eventually to the supreme court of the state, is very costly behavior. It spans years and costs time and money and energy. I think it takes a strong emotion to provoke someone to do that, and spite is as good a guess as any. As we said, the cost of the exercise likely equalled the cost of the ring, so he must have perceived some other benefit . Hence: spite. Especially since the law previous to his case was in favour of her keeping the ring.

I don’t actually have an opinion about who should get a ring in a situation like this. I find the psychology of lengthy court cases where there is no monetary gain at the end (after legal fees) interesting.
 
Dreamer_D said:
Going to such lengths to get the ring back, including many appeals and eventually to the supreme court of the state, is very costly behavior. It spans years and costs time and money and energy. I think it takes a strong emotion to provoke someone to do that, and spite is as good a guess as any. As we said, the cost of the exercise likely equalled the cost of the ring, so he must have perceived some other benefit . Hence: spite. Especially since the law previous to his case was in favour of her keeping the ring.

I don’t actually have an opinion about who should get a ring in a situation like this. I find the psychology of lengthy court cases where there is no monetary gain at the end (after legal fees) interesting.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

Perhaps he did this to (from his perspective) simply "do the right thing".
Sometimes righting a wrong isn't fast or cheap, but apparently he's well off.

Also, (speaking from experience) receiving a cancer diagnosis can be life & mind changing.
It can cause one to reflect deeply on what really matters in one's life.
 
Last edited:
Any serious medical diagnosis would have put everything in perspective that this wasn’t the person for me. Cutting my losses and realizing happiness is all that matters would have been my priority. Not court battles and winning. I would much rather be happy than right. I guess I view the court battle as a waste of precious time. What would you really gain other than more hurt, bitterness and negativity? People vary I guess. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Calliecake said:
Any serious medical diagnosis would have put everything in perspective that this wasn’t the person for me. Cutting my losses and realizing happiness is all that matters would have been my priority. Not court battles and winning. I would much rather be happy than right.
Click to expand...
The diagnosis, and her non-support put it into perspective for him too that she wasn't the person for him.
So he ended the engagement, cutting his losses which is pursuing happiness-priority 1 met.
He also met priority 2, winning the lawsuit.

IMO it wasn't a choice between being happy OR right.
He got both.
Good for him, I say.

I doubt I would've pursued such a court battle, but as you say people vary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top