Massachusetts Court Rules Engagement Ring Belongs to Buyer After Split, Ending Decades-Old Rule

In a landmark ruling, Massachusetts’ highest court has declared that an engagement ring must be returned to the buyer if a marriage doesn’t happen, regardless of who is “at fault” for the breakup. The ruling overturns a six-decade precedent that required judges to evaluate the reasons behind a failed engagement, often placing them in the delicate position of determining blame in highly personal and complex matters.

The case centered on Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino and a stunning $70,000 diamond ring, which became a point of contention when their relationship came to a sudden end. The couple, who met in 2016, enjoyed a whirlwind romance marked by luxurious vacations across the United States and Europe, many of which Johnson paid for, along with gifts of jewelry, clothing, and other items.

In 2017, after purchasing the expensive ring, Johnson formally sought Settino’s father’s permission to marry her. But, according to court documents, tensions soon surfaced. Johnson described his fiancée as increasingly distant, critical, and, to his dismay, unsupportive, especially after his diagnosis with prostate cancer. The breaking point came when Johnson, in a moment of suspicion, checked Settino’s phone and found messages to another man that suggested infidelity. “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” one message read. Another, in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake,” drove Johnson to end the engagement. Settino, however, maintained the man was simply a friend.

While Johnson’s decision to call off the wedding seemed straightforward, the question of who should keep the ring was anything but. Initially, a trial judge ruled that Settino should keep the ring, citing that Johnson’s suspicions of cheating were unfounded. However, upon appeal, the court decided in Johnson’s favor. In September, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took on the case, ultimately siding with Johnson. The court concluded that a ring, as a conditional gift, must be returned to the buyer if the engagement is broken, effectively discarding the previous fault-based standard.

This ruling reflects a shift in how family law treats the complexities of engagement ring ownership. Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet noted that the move away from the fault standard aligns with modern family law, which has evolved to reduce the role of blame in personal disputes. The court’s decision may also establish new legal clarity, sparing future couples the emotional and financial burden of litigating deeply personal relationship dynamics in court.

This decision comes as a relief to Johnson, who fought for his right to reclaim the symbol of a commitment that, in the end, was never realized. It signals a shift in perspective for Massachusetts courts, prioritizing a practical approach over a probe into personal matters, and one that may prevent future engagement breakups from turning into prolonged, painful legal battles.