The Saga of Caroline Settino and Bruce Johnson
In the summer of 2016, Caroline Settino’s life took an unexpected turn when she crossed paths with Bruce Johnson. Their initial meeting sparked a whirlwind romance characterized by extravagant gestures and lavish experiences. Mr. Johnson whisked Ms. Settino away on lavish trips to enchanting locations like Italy and the idyllic Virgin Islands, creating memories that many would consider a dream come true.
As their relationship blossomed, Mr. Johnson’s affection manifested in more than just travel; he lavished his girlfriend with expensive gifts, culminating in a significant milestone a year later. He presented Ms. Settino with an exquisite engagement ring from Tiffany & Co., valued at an astounding $70,000, and proposed at a picturesque resort on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. It seemed that their love story was destined for a fairy-tale ending.
However, the romantic narrative soon took a dramatic twist. Mr. Johnson’s feelings toward the relationship began to wane, leading him to end the engagement. In a surprising turn of events, he initiated legal proceedings to reclaim the engagement ring, igniting a complex legal battle over the fate of the costly token of affection.
For the past seven years, this case has meandered through the state courts, grappling with the intricate question of who retains ownership of an engagement ring when the wedding plans collapse. On Friday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court finally delivered a conclusive ruling on this matter: “When the planned nuptial does not come to pass, the engagement gift must be returned to the donor,” regardless of the circumstances surrounding the breakup.
This landmark decision marks a departure from the traditional approach that Massachusetts courts had employed for decades, which often involved determining which party was at fault for the dissolution of the engagement. The court’s ruling acknowledged the inherent difficulties in assigning blame, stating that the complexities of broken relationships should not be trivialized by courtroom battles over possessions. The justices emphasized that the engagement period serves a crucial purpose: it allows couples to evaluate the permanence of their intentions to marry.
Additionally, the court highlighted the myriad emotional complexities that often accompany broken engagements. They noted potential grievances that could arise, such as “difficulties with in-laws, hostility of one party’s minor child, pets that cannot get along, untidy habits or religious differences,” all of which complicate any attempt to assign blame. Ultimately, the justices concluded that viewing broken engagements as failures is contrary to the spirit of what an engagement signifies.
