BOSTON — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently made headlines with its landmark ruling on the ownership of engagement rings following broken engagements. At the heart of this case was a $70,000 diamond engagement ring involved in the turbulent breakup of Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino.
The court ruled decisively on Friday, stating unequivocally: if the wedding doesn't happen, the engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it. This ruling marks the end of over sixty years of legal precedent requiring courts to determine who was at fault for the relationship's demise.
The case traced back to the couple's relationship, which began during the summer of 2016. Their romance saw them travel to destinations including New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, and even Italy. Johnson, who paid for most of their travels and showered Settino with gifts, eventually presented her with the extravagant engagement ring and two wedding bands valued at nearly $3,700.
Yet complications arose when Johnson felt Settino became increasingly unsupportive after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. A pivotal moment occurred when he discovered questionable text messages on Settino’s phone, leading to his decision to end the engagement.
Initially, the case resolution swung toward Settino, with the trial court deeming she rightfully kept the ring based on the assumption Johnson wrongly accused her of infidelity. This left Johnson's ownership rights dangling, causing him to appeal the decision.
Fast forward to September, the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where the justices deliberated whether to uphold the previous obligation of determining fault when it came to engagement rings. Their ruling reflected the modern trend away from assigning blame. The court stated, "We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions... the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault."
The court acknowledged the messy emotional entanglements surrounding broken engagements and the difficulties courts faced when assigning blame. Factors like family dynamics, differing lifestyles, and the overall discomfort associated with prenuptial disagreements muddled attempts at fair judgment. The justices emphasized the impracticality of fault-based assessments, especially when engagements are intended to explore the concept of marriage without legal ramifications.
With this ruling, Massachusetts aligns itself with the prevailing no-fault divorce standards seen across much of the United States, where emotional entanglements shouldn't dictate material possessions. Legal experts and commentators were quick to celebrate this shift. Bruce Johnson's attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, hailed the court's decision as fair and just, feeling it represented progress for Massachusetts law.
On the other side, Settino's legal team expressed disappointment, advocating for the notion of engagement rings as gifts unbound by conditionality. Although Settino's lawyers proposed alternative legal strategies to maintain control of the ring—arguing it should not be considered conditional on marriage—the justices chose to uphold the status quo of engagement rings as conditional gifts.
This case echoes discussions within society, reflecting the evolution of romantic commitments and corresponding legal responsibilities. Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet remarked on the ruling's significance and noted her hopes for consideration of more equitable practices surrounding gifts of this nature. She reflected on the essence of gifts themselves, stating, "The court calls an engagement ring a conditional gift, but the rule for engagement rings is not the same as the rule for every other kind of conditional gift."
While this ruling provides clarity surrounding the ownership of engagement rings, it also ignites broader dialogues about gender norms and expectations woven through the fabric of relationships. It showcases how the law navigates personal disputes steeped in emotion, particularly as society continues to challenge outdated traditions.
Through the lenses of legality and relationships, this ruling signifies the ripple effects of cultural shifts impacting longstanding legal precedents historically bound to traditional notions of fault, blame, and ownership.