Massachusetts’ top court ruled on Friday that a woman must return a $70,000 engagement ring from Tiffany & Co. to her former fiancé, Bruce Johnson, marking a significant end to 65 years of legal debates in the state over who is responsible when a relationship ends.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sided with Johnson in his long-running legal battle against Caroline Settino, his ex-fiancée, after he called off their wedding.
In its ruling, the court aligned with the “modern trend” in other states, treating engagement rings as gifts that must be returned to the donor, regardless of fault. This decision updated the state’s approach to lawsuits concerning engagement rings, shifting away from previous legal precedents.
Nicholas Rosenberg, Settino’s attorney, expressed disappointment with the ruling. In a statement, he argued that the view of an engagement ring as a “conditional gift” is based on outdated ideas.
Johnson’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
The legal dispute over engagement rings is one of the last types of litigation involving broken engagements still recognized by U.S. courts. In the 1930s, most states began to abolish “heart balm” claims, which allowed women to sue for emotional damages when an engagement ended.
Initially, most states, including Massachusetts, followed a 1959 precedent that allowed the giver of an engagement ring to reclaim it as long as they were not at fault for breaking off the engagement. That was the principle applied in the lower courts in the dispute between Johnson, a retired senior staff engineer at Siemens, and Settino, a former schoolteacher.
Johnson called off his wedding to Settino in 2017 after finding messages on her phone with another man, which led him to suspect she was having an affair. Settino denied the accusation, explaining the man was an old friend.
In 2018, Johnson sued Settino to recover the $70,000 engagement ring. A lower court initially ruled against him, deciding that he was at fault for the breakup, as the judge believed the affair claim was unfounded. However, an appeals court reversed that decision, ultimately bringing the case to the state’s highest court.
Settino’s lawyer had urged the court to follow a different path, one taken by the Montana Supreme Court in 2002, which ruled that engagement rings should not be returned, regardless of fault. But the Massachusetts court, in a unanimous 6-0 decision, rejected that approach. Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt noted the widespread understanding that engagement rings are gifts, given with the expectation of a future marriage.
