Massachusetts would-be bride must return $70,000 ring, court rules
By Nate Raymond
BOSTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) -Massachusetts' top court on Friday ruled that a would-be bride must return a $70,000 engagement ring from Tiffany & Co to her former fiancé in a decision that ended 65 years of courts in the New England state trying to sort through who is to blame when a relationship falls apart.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sided with Bruce Johnson in his years-long legal battle with his former romantic partner, Caroline Settino, in his bid to reclaim the pricey remnant of their relationship after he called off their wedding.
In making its ruling, the court said it was updating how it approaches lawsuits seeking the return of rings and join the "modern trend" of states that today treat engagements rings as gifts that must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.
Nicholas Rosenberg, Settino's lawyer, in a statement called the ruling disappointing, saying that "the idea of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions."
Johnson's lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
Lawsuits seeking the return of rings are essentially the last remaining type of litigation over broken engagements recognized by U.S. courts, after states in the 1930s started to abolish "heart balm" claims that women previously had been able to pursue when a marriage promise was called off.
Most states initially followed the approach the Massachusetts court adopted in 1959, which held that the giver of an engagement ring is entitled to its return so long as that person was not "at fault" for calling off the nuptials.
That principle in the lower courts had governed the dispute between Johnson, a retired senior staff engineer at Siemens, and Settino, a former schoolteacher.
Johnson called off his planned wedding to Settino in 2017 after seeing messages on her phone with another man and suspecting she was having an affair. Settino denies Johnson's accusations, saying the man was a decades-old friend.
Johnson took Settino to court in 2018 to get the $70,000 ring he proposed with back, but a judge concluded he was mistaken about the affair and must bear fault for their separation. But an appeals court reversed the ruling, leading to the appeal to the state high court.
Settino's attorney had asked the court to avoid the "highly gendered" approach of treating a ring as a gift conditioned on a marriage and instead follow the Montana Supreme Court, which adopted a no-take-backs approach in 2002.
But the 6-0 court declined to do so, with Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt citing the "near universal understanding of engagement rings as gifts inherently conditioned on a subsequent marriage."
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Leslie Adler
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
