Who keeps the engagement ring if a couple calls off the wedding? Does it matter who’s at fault? For sixty-five years, Massachusetts courts have said that the person who gave the ring could get it back following a broken engagement if they weren’t at fault for the breakup. But, in a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Bruce Johnson v. Caroline Settino, the court changed this longstanding law.
Fault no longer matters in Massachusetts. If the wedding doesn’t happen, the person who gave the ring gets it back regardless of who’s to blame. This law change represents the popular view on the issue today. “We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context; where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault,” the SJC held.
Background
Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino met in the summer of 2016 and started dating. They traveled extensively for the next year, taking trips for which Bruce paid. Bruce also bought Caroline lavish gifts and contributed to some of Caroline’s medical expenses. One such expense was the first part of a dental implant procedure.
Bruce bought Caroline a $70,000 diamond engagement ring during the year they were dating. Then, in August 2017, Bruce proposed to Caroline and presented her with the ring. Caroline said, “Yes.”
In October 2017, Bruce bought two wedding bands totaling about $3,700. Bruce and Caroline set their wedding date for September 2018.
The Fairy Tale Ends
Shortly thereafter, however, Bruce began to feel as though Caroline was becoming critical and unsupportive of him. Caroline called Bruce a “moron,” yelled at him and would storm away, complained about his cell phone use, and blamed Bruce when things went wrong. Moreover, she did not accompany him to treatments when Bruce got a prostate cancer diagnosis. Still, Bruce moved forward with the wedding plans.
Then, during an argument in November 2017, Caroline told Bruce something about being a good-looking woman who could get any man she wanted. Storming away, Caroline left her cell phone behind in the room with Bruce.
So, Bruce looked at Caroline’s phone and saw a text from Caroline to a man he did not know. The text read, “‘My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.'” Bruce found other texts and a voicemail from the man. In the latter, the man referred to Caroline as “‘cupcake'” and said they don’t see each other often enough.
Following a confrontation with Caroline the next morning and Caroline’s denial of any wrongdoing—and given that Bruce’s first marriage ended due to infidelity—Bruce began to reflect on the relationship. He ended the engagement two weeks later.
Caroline kept the engagement ring and wedding bands.
Trial Court: This is Bruce’s fault so Caroline keeps the engagement ring.
Bruce later sued Caroline to get the engagement ring and wedding bands back. At trial, the judge found that Bruce was unilaterally responsible for ending the engagement due to his mistaken belief that Caroline was having an affair. The judge said Bruce “‘must bear the fault for the breakup of this engagement'” and concluded that Caroline was entitled to keep the ring. He also awarded one wedding band to Bruce and the other to Caroline.
The trial court’s decision turned on the issue of fault. The law up until this point said that Bruce could keep the ring only if he wasn’t at fault for the breakup. The judge determined that Bruce didn’t prove that Caroline was having a sexual affair with the man behind the messages. (For those interested in the legal standard here, Bruce would have had to prove that Caroline was having an affair “by a preponderance of the evidence”). In fact, the judge found that Caroline and the man had been friends for 40 years and nothing romantic was happening. So the breakup was Bruce’s fault since he was wrong about the affair.
Bruce appealed.
Appeals Court: Bruce was not at fault so he gets the engagement ring.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court, though divided, reversed the trial court’s decision. It noted that the Massachusetts appellate courts haven’t addressed how to assess fault in these circumstances. But, according to the Appeals Court, the person who ends the engagement isn’t necessarily the one to blame. Instead, the Appeals Court found that Bruce was not “‘at fault'” for the end of the engagement because he acted reasonably—whether or not he was wrong about the affair.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) then took up the case.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
More than sixty years ago, a Massachusetts case addressed the issue of fault in determining whether a donor (the person giving the ring) could get the engagement ring back from the recipient (the person getting the ring) if an engagement is called off. In that case, De Cicco, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a donor gives an engagement ring on the implied condition that the marriage will occur. If the engagement is called off, however, the donor can get the engagement ring back if the donor wasn’t at fault for the breakup.
The De Cicco decision did not define the legal standard for assessing “fault” in these cases. Meaning, after the De Cicco case, we didn’t know how to decide who was at fault for the breakup of the engagement.
SJC adopts the modern-day majority view: If the wedding does not occur, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.
Fast forward to Johnson v. Settino. Here, the SJC considered whether fault matters when deciding if a donor gets the engagement ring back after a failed engagement. In doing so, the SJC looked to see what other courts nationwide have decided on this issue and found that other states have identified challenges to a fault-based approach.
Why Fault Should Not Matter
First, how does one assign culpability for a failed engagement? Said differently, what justifies breaking off an engagement? One out-of-state court facetiously asked, “Is the absence of a sense of humor enough?”
Second, other courts have noted that couples should be free to reexamine their commitment during the engagement period to ensure that they really want to marry each other. After all, it’s better from a public policy perspective for a person to break off an engagement promise than marriage vows. And no justification should be necessary.
Third, considering fault in these cases opens the door to abuse of the judicial system with “jilted” parties using the courts to unleash their “sorrows.” In fact, states nationwide have enacted laws to avoid such public courtroom disclosures. Massachusetts is one such state. Here, the “heart balm” act bars one previously engaged party from suing their former partner for breach of contract to marry after a broken engagement.
Fourth, fault doesn’t matter in modern-day divorce. So why should it be relevant in a failed engagement? In Massachusetts, spouses can file for divorce based on irretrievable breakdown, which has nothing to do with fault.
Given these considerations, the majority of states that have dealt with this issue have concluded that fault doesn’t matter when deciding who gets the engagement ring after a broken engagement. An engagement ring is a conditional gift, given in contemplation of marriage. If the marriage doesn’t occur, the condition has not been met and the recipient must return the engagement ring to the donor.
The doctrine of stare decisis: What about Massachusetts’ longstanding law?
Although the modern-day majority view among courts nationwide is that fault doesn’t matter in these cases, the SJC addressed the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e. legal precedent). Stare decisis is “the idea that today’s court should stand by yesterday’s decisions.” So, what of the fact that De Cicco said fault matters? We’ve had case law on this issue for a while. Doesn’t the SJC today have to abide by that decision since it’s already settled law?
Yes, the SJC says, sticking to precedent is preferred. But stare decisis is not absolute. And, although it must be done with “great care,” the court is “amenable to changing an ‘outdated’ or unworkable rule,” essentially adapting to present-day society.
Considering our sister courts’ reasoning, the SJC rejected the De Cicco fault approach here, concluding that “it is time to let it go.”
An engagement ring is a conditional gift and who’s to blame for a broken engagement is irrelevant. Caroline must return the engagement ring to Bruce along with the wedding band.
“[W]e adopt the no-fault approach to determining ownership of an engagement ring after the engagement is terminated,” the SJC said.
Regarding the conditionality of the engagement ring, Caroline argued that the SJC should also overturn the De Cicco conclusion that an engagement ring is a gift “conditioned on the occurrence of marriage.” Caroline’s argument did not convince the SJC. Looking again to sister courts in other jurisdictions, the SJC found there to be a “near universal understanding of engagement rings as gifts inherently conditioned on a subsequent marriage,” which “leads us to conclude that we must stand by our conclusion in De Cicco that an engagement gift is a conditional gift.”
“Accordingly,” the SJC determined, “Settino must return to Johnson the engagement ring and wedding band, each of which was given by Johnson to Settino in contemplation of marriage.”
Contact Us
With over 100 years of combined attorney experience, we have exceptional knowledge and skill in divorce and family law litigation. Contact us if you’d like to better understand your rights and options. You can schedule a free consultation by calling 866-382-3817. Or you can click the button below.