Court rules on alleged cheater who kept $70,000 engagement ring in case that challenged state law

The recent decision by the highest court in Massachusetts regarding a $70,000 engagement ring has sparked controversy and debate. The case involved a former couple, Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, whose relationship came to an abrupt end.

Johnson and Settino had been dating since the summer of 2016, with Johnson showering Settino with lavish gifts and vacations. In August 2017, Johnson proposed to Settino with a stunning $70,000 diamond engagement ring. However, their relationship took a turn for the worse when Johnson discovered messages on Settino’s phone from another man, prompting him to end the engagement.

The question of who was entitled to keep the expensive engagement ring became the subject of a legal battle. While a trial judge initially ruled in Settino’s favor, an appeals court later overturned the decision in favor of Johnson.

The case eventually made its way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which issued a groundbreaking ruling. The court decided that the engagement ring should be returned to the person who purchased it, regardless of who was at fault for the relationship’s demise. This ruling effectively overturned a longstanding state rule that required judges to determine fault in such disputes.

The justices emphasized that in cases where a wedding does not take place and the engagement is called off, the engagement ring should be returned to the donor. This decision aligns Massachusetts law with the majority of other states that have adopted similar rules regarding engagement ring ownership.

Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson’s lawyer, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, calling it fair and just. On the other hand, Settino’s legal team, led by Nicholas Rosenberg, expressed disappointment with the outcome but acknowledged the court’s decision to follow the prevailing legal precedent.

The case highlights the evolving nature of laws surrounding engagement rings and relationships. The concept of fault in such disputes is becoming outdated, with many jurisdictions moving towards a more straightforward approach to resolving ownership disputes.

In conclusion, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling sets a new precedent for how engagement ring disputes are handled in the state. By prioritizing the original purchaser’s rights over fault determination, the court has modernized and streamlined the legal process in such cases.