After a six-year legal battle, the fate of a $70,000 diamond solitaire engagement ring will be decided by Massachusetts' highest court. The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments this past Friday in a case that will finally provide clarity to the age-old question: Who gets to keep the diamond engagement ring if the wedding is called off?
The final ruling, which is expected within 130 days, will not only end the dispute between Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who were briefly engaged in 2017, but also set an important legal precedent in Massachusetts.
Back in 2021, a Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that despite Johnson's suspicions that his fiancée was having an affair, the allegations were unfounded and it was his fault that the wedding was called off. As a result, Settino was entitled to keep the ring. Johnson could have retained the ring if he could have convinced the court that the breakup was not his fault.
But, then a Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2023 turned the lower court's decision on its head.
A panel ruled in Johnson's favor, stating that he may have had solid reasons to call off the engagement even if couldn't prove infidelity.
"Sometimes there simply is no fault to be had," the court said.
The Appeals Court asked the Supreme Court to take the case and decide once and for all whether engagement rings should be returned after a breakup, no matter who is at fault.
In fact, a majority of states currently take the "no fault" approach. They consider engagement rings a "conditional" gift that should be returned by the recipient if the relationship fails to culminate in a marriage. Who is at fault is not considered.
In this view, according to Virginia-based law firm SmolenPlevy, the ring is given with the understanding that the couple will get married in the future and symbolizes a verbal contract. Ownership of the ring is not fully transferred until the wedding ceremony is completed.
The law firm added that a minority of states take the opposite view. They consider the ring an "unconditional gift," so if either person breaks off the engagement, the recipient gets to keep the ring.
Ownership of the ring can be further complicated by whether the ring was given as a “gift” on a holiday or birthday, for example.
The Telegraph noted that in the UK, an engagement ring is considered to be an “absolute gift.” Unless there were conditions attached by the giver, the receiver of the ring is generally entitled to keep it. Still, UK cases can sometimes get muddied when the engagement ring is a family heirloom.
SmolenPlevy recommends that the best way to avoid costly, emotional and drawn-out litigation is to enter into a prenuptial or premarital agreement, which outlines clearly who will get the ring if the wedding never takes place. This agreement also can cover what happens to the ring if the couple gets married, but later divorces.
According to The Telegraph, the $70,000 ring at the center of the Massachusetts dispute is currently in the custody of a third party until a final verdict can be reached.
Credit: Image by BigStockPhoto.com.