The highest court in the state of Massachusetts recently decided what to do with a $70,000 engagement ring amid a dispute between the ex-spouses.
It overturned a 16-year-old provincial law that forced judges to determine who was responsible for the end of the relationship, and instead said the engagement ring must be returned to the person who first bought it.
The former couple, Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, started dating in the summer of 2016. Johnson allegedly paid for lavish gifts and vacations for Settino, according to court documents.
THE BRIDE HAS STOPPED GETTING ENGAGED, GOES AFTER THE WEDDING DAYS WITH HER FRIENDS AND FAMILY
In August 2017, Johnson asked Settino's father for her hand in marriage and proposed with a $70,000 diamond engagement ring.
According to court documents, Johnson said Settino then became critical and unsupportive, did not accompany him to his prostate cancer treatment, and yelled at him.
Johnson checked Settino's cell phone and found text messages from him to an unknown man.
The engagement ring was worth about $70,000. (Stock)
“My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” Settino's text read.
Johnson also received a voicemail in which the same unidentified man called Settino a “cake” and said they didn't see each other enough.
After confronting Settino over text messages, Johnson ended their marriage. However, the ownership of the $70,000 engagement ring was unclear. A legal battle ensued.
JENNIFER LOPEZ'S ENGAGEMENT RING FROM BEN AFFLECK PROMISES IT'S 'NOT GOING ANYWHERE'
While another trial judge ruled that Settino was entitled to keep the ring, an appeals court found that Johnson should receive the ring.
The case finally went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in September of this year, which decided that Johnson should keep the engagement ring.
If the marriage does not take place, the judges said in their decision that the question of “who is at fault” should continue to dominate ownership rights over engagement rings.
A Massachusetts decision from about 70 years ago found that engagement rings are considered conditional gifts and can be returned in the event of a broken engagement if the person is “not at fault.”
The justices wrote in Friday's decision, “we now join the modern practice accepted by the majority of authorities who have considered this issue and rejected the concept of error in this context.”
Attorney John Kappos, back left, fights for a doctor in Boston on March 9, 2022. The Supreme Court of Justice hears oral arguments between Roger M. Kligler and Dr. Alan Steinbach vs. Maura Healey & Michael O'Keefe. Dr. Roger Kligler, who has terminal prostate cancer, wants doctors to be able to prescribe a number of lethal drugs to terminally ill patients with six months or less to live, without fear of prosecution. The state's highest court on Wednesday considered arguments in the controversial Cape Cod doctors' death case, with justices asking whether times, law, and medicine changed to legalize assisted dying and whether the decision should be overturned. in the Legislature. (Photo by Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
“When, as here, the arranged marriage does not proceed and the marriage is over, the wedding ring must be returned to the donor regardless of how much he is at fault,” the judges continued.
Stephanie Taverna Siden, the attorney who represented Bruce Johnson, said she was “pleased” with the decision.
“We're very pleased with the court's decision today. It's a smart, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden told the Associated Press.
One of Settino's lawyers, Nicholas Rosenberg, said they were disappointed with the outcome of the Associated Press, but they respected the court's decision to follow the decision of the majority of the states.
“We strongly believe that the idea of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is based on outdated ideas and should no longer be a legal loophole in our well-established rule that the breach of a promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law. ,” said Nicholas Rosenberg.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source link
