Engagements often symbolize a binding agreement or a contract of marriage between two parties. However, engagements do not always result in weddings, with
around 20% of them being called off. This scenario raises a common and pertinent question: Who gets to keep the engagement ring? This question has fuelled numerous legal debates, largely because the ‘giver’ often perceives the ring as a conditional item that should be returned if the marriage plan is annulled. In contrast, the receiver generally views it as an unconditional gift that becomes their possession once it changes hands.
Recently, an interesting case surfaced from the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
As reported by the ABA Journal, a man named Bruce Johnson, who had canceled his engagement, was ruled to be entitled to the return of an engagement ring and wedding band worth over $70,000. The ruling came from a 2-1 decision verdict in the appeals court.
The Massachusetts law adopts a contractual approach to such matters. This results in the resolution of the ownership of post-breach objects primarily based on the perceived ‘fault’ of the parties. In Bruce’s case, the details revealed in the court led to a judgment that was not in favor of the woman he was engaged to, Caroline Settino.
Johnson’s accusations against Settino, including berating over insignificant matters and an alleged sign of infidelity, were cited by the court. As per reports, most states apply a no-fault methodology to engagement terminations, which typically reinstates the ring to the giver. It is, however, pointed out that the Appeals Court lacks the authority to opt for the majority approach, suggesting the prospects of a possible future overruling by a higher court.
This case provides a significant insight into how legal systems may interpret the distribution of shared assets following a breakup, notably amongst couples who were on track to marriage. It also adds to the tally of successful pro se representations for plaintiffs, and gives Bruce his deserved congratulations!
For a deeper view of this intriguing legal dispute, the full report by the ABA Journal on the case can be accessed here.