Massachusetts Court Rules $70,000 Engagement Ring Must Be Returned to Ex-Fiancé

In a decision that reflects modern trends, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that an engagement ring is a gift that must be returned when a relationship ends. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Friday that Caroline Settino must return the $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring to her former fiancé, Bruce Johnson, after a legal battle over their broken engagement.

The case, which stretches over several years, centers on the couple’s failed marriage plans. Johnson had called off the wedding in 2017, citing suspicions of infidelity after discovering messages on Settino’s phone. Settino denied the accusations, claiming the man in question was an old friend. Following the breakup, Johnson sought the return of the expensive ring, a symbol of their once-promising future.

In its ruling, the court shifted away from past legal precedents, declaring that engagement rings should be seen as conditional gifts, intended for marriage. This decision aligns Massachusetts with a growing trend in U.S. law, which requires the return of engagement rings regardless of who ended the relationship. The court emphasized that this modern view of engagement rings better reflects contemporary expectations of gift-giving.

Settino’s attorney expressed disappointment with the ruling, arguing that the legal stance on engagement rings is rooted in outdated gendered assumptions. However, the court declined to adopt the approach taken by other states like Montana, where courts have ruled that engagement rings cannot be reclaimed under any circumstance.

This decision marks a shift from a 1959 ruling in Massachusetts, where the return of an engagement ring was contingent on fault—meaning the person who broke off the engagement had to be proven at fault for the ring to be returned. That principle had governed this case until it reached the state’s highest court.

With the court’s unanimous ruling, Johnson will now reclaim the costly token of a marriage that never came to be, marking the end of a saga that highlights the evolving nature of legal views on romantic gifts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top