Who gets to keep the engagement ring if the romance goes sour and the wedding is called off?
That’s what the highest court in the US state of Massachusetts has been asked to decide with a $US70,000 ($106,000) ring at the center of the dispute.
The court ultimately ruled that the engagement ring must be returned to the person who bought it, ending a six-decade-long state rule that required judges to try to identify who was to blame for the end of a relationship.
The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings.
Over the next year they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy.
Johnson paid for the vacation, and he also gave Settin jewelry, clothes, shoes, and purses.
Johnson eventually bought a $106,000 diamond engagement ring and in August 2017 asked Settin’s father for permission to marry her.
Two months later, he also bought two wedding rings for about $3,700 ($5,622).
Johnson said that after that, he felt like Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive of him, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings.
At some point, Johnson looked at Settin’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.
“My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. I need some time to play,” the message read.
He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man called Settin a “cookie” and said they didn’t see each other enough.
Settino said the man was just a friend.
Johnson broke off the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.
The judge initially ruled that Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.”
The appeals court ruled that Johnson should get the ring.
In September, the case went before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.
In their ruling, the justices said the case raised the question of whether the question of “who is at fault” should continue to govern rights to engagement rings when the wedding does not take place.
How supporters rallied behind Kamala Harris and Donald Trump
More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and ruled that the person giving it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault.”
“We now join the modern trend adopted by most jurisdictions that have considered the issue and withdraw the concept of culpability in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling.
“Where, as here, the planned wedding does not take place and the engagement is broken off, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”
Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the verdict.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said.
Settin’s attorney did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.